Answers.Body: <p><em>Can a piece put a king in check even though moving that piece would be an illegal move?</em> </p>
  
  <p>Yes.</p>
  
  <p>One way to see why this makes sense is to imagine "checkless chess", a game that is just like chess, but you win by capturing the king, not by delivering checkmate, and no one is forced to move out of check. This game is exactly the same as chess except that it ends one move later and stalemate is generally a loss for the side that would have to "move into check".</p>
  
  <p>In checkless chess, he moved Bc6, then you moved Rg2, and if he makes some other random move, you can win with Rg2 x Kg8 before he wins with Bc6 x Kh1. So your check really is more "important" than his pin.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-27T14:26:23.377Z
Answers.Text: I was about to write exactly your answer, then see your answer. Best explanation. +1
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-11T15:22:54.140Z
Answers.Text: @LorenPechtel: Even in blitz chess, a player who would have no move other than to enter check would be entitled to a draw unless his clock fell before his last move and the opponent called attention to it before punching his clock.
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-10T15:08:54.153Z
Answers.Text: I think you misunderstand the concept of checkless chess. According to the wikipedia article: "Checkless Chess (or prohibition chess) is a chess variant where neither player is allowed to give a check, with the exception of checkmate." [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkless_chess) In checkless chess therefore, Bishop to C6 is illegal, and so is Rook to G2.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Aric
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-10T20:27:24.053Z
Answers.Text: @AricFowler I did not know that the term "checkless chess" was already used with a different meaning. Feel free to substitute some other term such as "chess without check" everywhere I say "checkless chess".
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-04T19:07:33.063Z
Answers.Text: Thank you for the response, and it makes sense in a "checkless" context, but given that moving my rook would be illegal, I am still unclear as to why he was in check in a real "with check" game. I wouldn't be able to move Rg3 for example, so why would I be allowed to move Rxg8 given the normal rules?
Answers.UserDisplayName: ken
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-04T19:11:41.117Z
Answers.Text: In a real "with check" game, the definition of "check" is that the king is attacked by a piece, not that the piece could legally move to the square that the king is on. My "checkless chess" example was intended to illustrate why this definition makes sense.
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-04T19:14:11.920Z
Answers.Text: Thank you very much! I have only been playing a short while and still have much to learn.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ken
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-04T22:11:53.130Z
Answers.Text: +1 Basically, the point is that your theoretical capture of his king would end the game before (*just* before) he is able to capture yours. So if he was allowed to leave his King in check by your pinned rook, you would win.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Daniel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-04T23:37:35.260Z
Answers.Text: You don't need to imagine "checkless chess" as that's how every high speed game I've played has been handled--check means nothing, the game ends with the capture of the king.  It's crazy when everyone watching sees a check that neither player notices for multiple moves!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Loren Pechtel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-04T18:56:21.987Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-05-04T18:56:21.987Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.Body: <p>A piece can give check even when it is pinned. This is the main "exception" to the rule that a pinned piece cannot move.</p>
  
  <p>The reason is, your pinned piece giving check "takes" the opposing king first. (In this case, it's your rook at g2 on the g file.) That's BEFORE his bishop would take your king.</p>
  
  <p>So by the laws of the game, your friend had to move his king, you made your moves, and won. All perfectly legal (and tactical). Good work.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-12-17T20:52:03.937Z
Answers.Text: Notice that it is no exception, because a piece need not "move" to give check. Check is by definition the occupancy of a square of the board with the potential action of the piece and it *illegal* in the first place for the opponent's king to be placed on such square.
Answers.UserDisplayName: gented
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-04T19:09:15.003Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-05-04T19:15:59.693Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2013-05-04T19:15:59.693Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Answers.Body: <p>Yes. Besides making sense, it's also explicitly stated in the rules of the game:</p>
  
  <p><em>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.</em></p>
  
  <p>Source: <a href="http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=124&amp;view=article">Laws of Chess on the FIDE site</a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-04T19:07:19.017Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-05-04T19:07:19.017Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Body: <p>I was playing a game with a friend online. A situation came up where he put me in check with his bishop, and I moved my rook to block it. His king was on the g file and my rook was on g2. The website said he was in check. </p>
  
  <pre><code>[fen "6k1/8/2b5/8/8/8/6R1/7K b - - 0 1"]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p><em>Position after</em> <code>Rg2+</code> <em>, showing only the pieces important to the question.</em></p>
  
  <p>I didn't think it could be a check, since legally, I could not attack his king or move my rook because it would put my king in check. Can a piece put a king in check even though moving that piece would be an illegal move? </p>
  
  <p>This is odd, because since he was forced to respond to the check, I was able to make a couple moves and leave him with only a couple of blocked pawns, while I was able to promote a pawn and mate in a couple moves. I won, but it feels like cheating. He had a better position and should have won. </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-05-04T22:35:10.483Z
Comments.Text: By the way, beating a better position is not an indicator of cheating. :)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Daniel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-05-04T23:45:07.257Z
Comments.Text: You might want to think of it that way: To win a chess game, you have to take the enemy's king and the rules restricting your moves when you are in check are just here to prevent you from doing a move that would let the enemy take your king on his next turn. But if you take his king before he gets to play his next turn, then you win.
Comments.UserDisplayName: xavierm02
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-01T23:47:31.483Z
Comments.Text: Couldn't your opponent just take your rook with the bishop for material advantage and check?
Comments.UserDisplayName: justhalf
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-04-03T10:57:42.140Z
Comments.Text: @xavierm02 nice comment
Comments.UserDisplayName: ramanujan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-06-10T18:38:27.193Z
Comments.Text: @justhalf How would it be material advantage since the king can immediately capture the bishop for a draw?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-06-11T12:48:46.097Z
Comments.Text: @Michael the question stipulates "showing only the pieces important to the question", and at any case trading a rook for a bishop is increasing Black's material
Comments.UserDisplayName: justhalf
Tags: <rules><check><illegal-move><pins>
Title: Can a piece pinned to my king put the opponent's king in check?
ThreadText: # Can a piece pinned to my king put the opponent's king in check?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-05-04)
  
  I was playing a game with a friend online. A situation came up where he put me in check with his bishop, and I moved my rook to block it. His king was on the g file and my rook was on g2. The website said he was in check.
  
  ```
  [fen "6k1/8/2b5/8/8/8/6R1/7K b - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  *Position after* `Rg2+` *, showing only the pieces important to the question.*
  
  I didn't think it could be a check, since legally, I could not attack his king or move my rook because it would put my king in check. Can a piece put a king in check even though moving that piece would be an illegal move?
  
  This is odd, because since he was forced to respond to the check, I was able to make a couple moves and leave him with only a couple of blocked pawns, while I was able to promote a pawn and mate in a couple moves. I won, but it feels like cheating. He had a better position and should have won.
  
  **Tags:** rules, check, illegal-move, pins
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: By the way, beating a better position is not an indicator of cheating. :)  
  > **username_2**: You might want to think of it that way: To win a chess game, you have to take the enemy's king and the rules restricting your moves when you are in check are just here to prevent you from doing a move that would let the enemy take your king on his next turn. But if you take his king before he gets to play his next turn, then you win.  
  > **username_3**: Couldn't your opponent just take your rook with the bishop for material advantage and check?  
  > **username_4**: @username_2 nice comment  
  > **username_5**: @username_3 How would it be material advantage since the king can immediately capture the bishop for a draw?  
  > **username_3**: @username_5 the question stipulates "showing only the pieces important to the question", and at any case trading a rook for a bishop is increasing Black's material  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_13 on 2013-05-04. Score: 67 | Accepted answer
  
  Yes. Besides making sense, it's also explicitly stated in the rules of the game:
  
  *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.*
  
  Source: [Laws of Chess on the FIDE site](http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=124&view=article)
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2013-05-04. Score: 51
  
  *Can a piece put a king in check even though moving that piece would be an illegal move?*
  
  Yes.
  
  One way to see why this makes sense is to imagine "checkless chess", a game that is just like chess, but you win by capturing the king, not by delivering checkmate, and no one is forced to move out of check. This game is exactly the same as chess except that it ends one move later and stalemate is generally a loss for the side that would have to "move into check".
  
  In checkless chess, he moved Bc6, then you moved Rg2, and if he makes some other random move, you can win with Rg2 x Kg8 before he wins with Bc6 x Kh1. So your check really is more "important" than his pin.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thank you for the response, and it makes sense in a "checkless" context, but given that moving my rook would be illegal, I am still unclear as to why he was in check in a real "with check" game. I wouldn't be able to move Rg3 for example, so why would I be allowed to move Rxg8 given the normal rules?  
  > **username_6**: In a real "with check" game, the definition of "check" is that the king is attacked by a piece, not that the piece could legally move to the square that the king is on. My "checkless chess" example was intended to illustrate why this definition makes sense.  
  > **username_0**: Thank you very much! I have only been playing a short while and still have much to learn.  
  > **username_1**: +1 Basically, the point is that your theoretical capture of his king would end the game before (*just* before) he is able to capture yours. So if he was allowed to leave his King in check by your pinned rook, you would win.  
  > **username_10**: You don't need to imagine "checkless chess" as that's how every high speed game I've played has been handled--check means nothing, the game ends with the capture of the king.  It's crazy when everyone watching sees a check that neither player notices for multiple moves!  
  > **username_8**: @username_10: Even in blitz chess, a player who would have no move other than to enter check would be entitled to a draw unless his clock fell before his last move and the opponent called attention to it before punching his clock.  
  > **username_7**: I was about to write exactly your answer, then see your answer. Best explanation. +1  
  > **username_9**: I think you misunderstand the concept of checkless chess. According to the wikipedia article: "Checkless Chess (or prohibition chess) is a chess variant where neither player is allowed to give a check, with the exception of checkmate." [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkless_chess) In checkless chess therefore, Bishop to C6 is illegal, and so is Rook to G2.  
  > **username_6**: @AricFowler I did not know that the term "checkless chess" was already used with a different meaning. Feel free to substitute some other term such as "chess without check" everywhere I say "checkless chess".  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2013-05-04. Score: 14
  
  A piece can give check even when it is pinned. This is the main "exception" to the rule that a pinned piece cannot move.
  
  The reason is, your pinned piece giving check "takes" the opposing king first. (In this case, it's your rook at g2 on the g file.) That's BEFORE his bishop would take your king.
  
  So by the laws of the game, your friend had to move his king, you made your moves, and won. All perfectly legal (and tactical). Good work.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_12**: Notice that it is no exception, because a piece need not "move" to give check. Check is by definition the occupancy of a square of the board with the potential action of the piece and it *illegal* in the first place for the opponent's king to be placed on such square.  
  
  ---
  
  