Answers.Body: <p>Still considered in check. <a href="http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&amp;view=article">FIDE handbook</a> from the WCF website.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>3.9<br>
    The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, <strong>even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check.</strong> No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-10-15T19:06:39.053Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-10-15T19:06:39.053Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: shivsky
Body: <p>Black was in a position to take a white bishop with the king.  The white bishop was protected by a white knight.  However, if the white knight was moved it would expose the white king to the black queen.</p>
  
  <p>Thus, is the king actually in check if the attacking piece (white knight) cannot be moved?<br>
  Or,
  Can the king move into check if the attacking piece (white knight) cannot move?</p>
  
  <p>Thank you.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-10-15T19:08:50.683Z
Comments.Text: See a similar question [here](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2348/illegal-move-can-put-a-king-in-check).
Comments.UserDisplayName: dfan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-10-15T19:29:32.747Z
Comments.Text: One way to reason out such situations is as follows. Earlier in history,killing the opponents king was considered to be the victory. Hence as per this rule, technically, a player has won the game if he has killed the opponent's king and the game ends there. It does not matter that the player's own king could have been killed in the next move. Today, in contemporary chess, checkmate is considered an elegant way to end the game. But the same reasoning applies.
Comments.UserDisplayName: guru
Tags: <check>
Title: Is the king actually in check if the attacking piece cannot be moved?
ThreadText: # Is the king actually in check if the attacking piece cannot be moved?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-10-15)
  
  Black was in a position to take a white bishop with the king. The white bishop was protected by a white knight. However, if the white knight was moved it would expose the white king to the black queen.
  
  Thus, is the king actually in check if the attacking piece (white knight) cannot be moved?  
  Or,
  Can the king move into check if the attacking piece (white knight) cannot move?
  
  Thank you.
  
  **Tags:** check
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: See a similar question [here](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2348/illegal-move-can-put-a-king-in-check).  
  > **username_2**: One way to reason out such situations is as follows. Earlier in history,killing the opponents king was considered to be the victory. Hence as per this rule, technically, a player has won the game if he has killed the opponent's king and the game ends there. It does not matter that the player's own king could have been killed in the next move. Today, in contemporary chess, checkmate is considered an elegant way to end the game. But the same reasoning applies.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2013-10-15. Score: 5
  
  Still considered in check. [FIDE handbook](http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article) from the WCF website.
  
  > 3.9  
  > The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, **even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check.** No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.
  
  
  ---
  
  