Answers.Body: <p>No, the black king cannot capture the rook in the position. The simple explanation is that the white knight will capture your king before your rook captures your opponents king. Personally, chess should not have rules such as check and checkmate. The aim of the game should be to capture the king, not checkmate the king. I speculate that these rules of checking and checkmate was formed by etiquette anyways since even in Xiang qi where the object is to capture the "king," you still say check, and I learn that it was a convention of etiquette. .</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-02-17T09:56:15.360Z
Answers.Text: Ah. Finally an answer that makes sense to me! I never really thought as Check as being etiquette, but I guess it is. Without that etiquette, the Knight would just take my King and win. Makes perfect sense now, thanks.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chuck
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-02-17T22:39:31.497Z
Answers.Text: Much of what makes chess interesting stems from the requirement that in order to win a player must always allow his opponent a move which would not subject his king to immediate capture. Scoring stalemates as a loss for the side unable to move would--compared to the present rule--make it much easier to convert a slight advantage into a win. That would shift the balance in White's favor, perhaps to the point that at the GM level White would always win. Having White start with an advantage that may or may not be sufficient for a win is more interesting.
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-02-18T16:33:22.143Z
Answers.Text: Supercat, you are totally right. I did not see that implication of stalemate. The etiquette actually made the game better.
Answers.UserDisplayName: CognisMantis
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-02-03T12:41:13.113Z
Answers.Text: *"The aim of the game should be to capture the king, not checkmate the king"* that is incorrect: in chess you do **not** capture the opponent King, that is exactly the one piece you never take. The purpose is to have the opponent King in check with no legal moves allowed and in this respect checkmates and check announcements do the job and make perfect sense.
Answers.UserDisplayName: gented
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-02-03T12:41:56.153Z
Answers.Text: The reason why, in the example at hand, the Black King cannot capture the Rook is because that would be an illegal move, not because "otherwise the opponent capture your King first".
Answers.UserDisplayName: gented
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-27T19:08:31.477Z
Answers.Text: As a side note, the alternative to what supercat describes is to allow non-move again.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joshua
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-02-17T02:01:31.917Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-02-17T02:01:31.917Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: CognisMantis
Body: <p>I am playing a game at the moment and I want to know if the King can take a piece that is being protected by another piece... that cannot move. </p>
  
  <p>Why can't the other, protecting, piece move? Because it would put the other King in check. </p>
  
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/0UIAr.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/0UIAr.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
  
  <p>In other words: Can the Black King take the White Rook?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-02-17T01:23:33.890Z
Comments.Text: Possible duplicate: http://chess.stackexchange.com/q/2348/167
Comments.UserDisplayName: ETD
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-02-17T01:43:13.347Z
Comments.Text: This does appear to be a duplicate, but I don't understand that rule at all. I'm sure it makes sense, I just can't grasp why :(
Comments.UserDisplayName: Chuck
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-02-17T02:57:56.093Z
Comments.Text: See [illegal (?) move can put a king in check?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2348/illegal-move-can-put-a-king-in-check), [Can the King be attacked by a pinned piece?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4565/can-the-king-be-attacked-by-a-pinned-piece), [Is the king actually in check if the attacking piece cannot be moved?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/3966/is-the-king-actually-in-check-if-the-attacking-piece-cannot-be-moved), and [Could black have taken the queen here?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/8436/could-black-have-taken-the-queen-here?).
Comments.UserDisplayName: dfan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-02-17T03:08:37.217Z
Comments.Text: Chuck, I'm going to go ahead and close this as a duplicate. But if you continue to find that with all of the answers to the other questions linked to in the comments there is still some particular question you have unanswered (say, about the *why* of the rule being as it is), then please edit your question accordingly and it could potentially be re-opened (if the edited version is substantially different than earlier questions).
Comments.UserDisplayName: ETD
Tags: <rules>
Title: Can the King be put in Check by a piece that cannot move?
ThreadText: # Can the King be put in Check by a piece that cannot move?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-02-17)
  
  I am playing a game at the moment and I want to know if the King can take a piece that is being protected by another piece... that cannot move.
  
  Why can't the other, protecting, piece move? Because it would put the other King in check.
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/0UIAr.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/0UIAr.jpg)
  
  In other words: Can the Black King take the White Rook?
  
  **Tags:** rules
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Possible duplicate: http://chess.stackexchange.com/q/2348/167  
  > **username_0**: This does appear to be a duplicate, but I don't understand that rule at all. I'm sure it makes sense, I just can't grasp why :(  
  > **username_2**: See [illegal (?) move can put a king in check?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2348/illegal-move-can-put-a-king-in-check), [Can the King be attacked by a pinned piece?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4565/can-the-king-be-attacked-by-a-pinned-piece), [Is the king actually in check if the attacking piece cannot be moved?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/3966/is-the-king-actually-in-check-if-the-attacking-piece-cannot-be-moved), and [Could black have taken the queen here?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/8436/could-black-have-taken-the-queen-here?).  
  > **username_1**: username_0, I'm going to go ahead and close this as a duplicate. But if you continue to find that with all of the answers to the other questions linked to in the comments there is still some particular question you have unanswered (say, about the *why* of the rule being as it is), then please edit your question accordingly and it could potentially be re-opened (if the edited version is substantially different than earlier questions).  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2015-02-17. Score: 2 | Accepted answer
  
  No, the black king cannot capture the rook in the position. The simple explanation is that the white knight will capture your king before your rook captures your opponents king. Personally, chess should not have rules such as check and checkmate. The aim of the game should be to capture the king, not checkmate the king. I speculate that these rules of checking and checkmate was formed by etiquette anyways since even in Xiang qi where the object is to capture the "king," you still say check, and I learn that it was a convention of etiquette. .
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Ah. Finally an answer that makes sense to me! I never really thought as Check as being etiquette, but I guess it is. Without that etiquette, the Knight would just take my King and win. Makes perfect sense now, thanks.  
  > **username_4**: Much of what makes chess interesting stems from the requirement that in order to win a player must always allow his opponent a move which would not subject his king to immediate capture. Scoring stalemates as a loss for the side unable to move would--compared to the present rule--make it much easier to convert a slight advantage into a win. That would shift the balance in White's favor, perhaps to the point that at the GM level White would always win. Having White start with an advantage that may or may not be sufficient for a win is more interesting.  
  > **username_3**: Supercat, you are totally right. I did not see that implication of stalemate. The etiquette actually made the game better.  
  > **username_6**: As a side note, the alternative to what username_4 describes is to allow non-move again.  
  > **username_5**: *"The aim of the game should be to capture the king, not checkmate the king"* that is incorrect: in chess you do **not** capture the opponent King, that is exactly the one piece you never take. The purpose is to have the opponent King in check with no legal moves allowed and in this respect checkmates and check announcements do the job and make perfect sense.  
  > **username_5**: The reason why, in the example at hand, the Black King cannot capture the Rook is because that would be an illegal move, not because "otherwise the opponent capture your King first".  
  
  ---
  
  