Answers.Body: <p>Yes, it is legal, since your king is no longer being attacked.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-31T22:06:10.383Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-04-01T06:44:37.247Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-04-01T06:44:37.247Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Fatso Boo
Answers.Body: <p>It is legal to block a check with a move that also gives check.
  This includes the case you ask about, where the blocker is a queen;
  this is a key tactic in queen endings.</p>
  <p>In general, a move that simultaneously parries a check and gives check
  is called a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-check" rel="nofollow noreferrer">cross-check</a>.
  This can happen with any of the three ways to parry a check:</p>
  <ul>
  <ul>
  <li><p>The King can move, discovering check;</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>the checking piece can be captured, giving either direct or discovered check;
  or</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>the check can be blocked, again with either direct or discovered check.</p>
  </li>
  </ul>
  </ul>
  <p><a href="https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/records/records.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Tim Krabbé</a>
  cites two tournament games (Zarrouati-Brauckmann, Toulouse 1990;
  Cardona-Conejero, Mislata (Spain) 2003) each featuring a sequence of
  six(!) conecutive checks, and thus five consecutive cross-checks.
  These show four of the five kinds of cross-check listed above
  (including one where a Queen move both blocks and gives check,
  as <strong>John</strong> asked).
  The fifth kind, a block that discovers check, is illustrated twice in
  G.F.Anderson's 1919 problem cited on Wikipedia's &quot;cross-check&quot; page,
  and five times in the 1961 problem by the same G.F.Anderson —
  including three cases where the cross-check is both direct and discovered,
  i.e. a double check.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-06T03:47:31.467Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-04-06T03:47:31.467Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Noam D. Elkies
Answers.Body: <p>It is absolutly legal. A fun lichess study even did it some times: <a href="https://lichess.org/study/1LK3rCAK" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://lichess.org/study/1LK3rCAK</a> (it happened 5 times if I counted correctly, but not a lot with the queen :) )</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-06T15:15:30.627Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-04-06T15:15:30.627Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Irsu85
Answers.Body: <p>Yes, that move even has a proper name called cross-check</p>
  <p>Nowadays most chess programs/apps/websites implement complete FIDE rules. A quicker way to check might be to set up the board that reflects your case, and see if the program allows you to move that way</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-06T15:41:40.080Z
Answers.Text: It's not true that "most chess programs/apps/websites implement complete FIDE rules". For example, consider how the game is scored when a player runs out of time and both players only have the king and one knight left. All websites I know would score this as a draw, violating the FIDE rules.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arne
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-06T07:36:16.073Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-04-06T07:36:16.073Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: jf328
Answers.Body: <p>It is legal to block the check in a way which puts the opponent in check.</p>
  <p>The rule is easier to understand with some history.  One can think of chess as a game which ends when one captures the enemy king.  Indeed, there are some variants of Chess which do end this way.  However, historically it was <em>highly</em> frowned upon to think about capturing a king.  Capturing a queen was bad enough, but kings were not something a peasant just went around capturing.  And so, the game of Chess evolved to not capture the enemy king.  Instead, we reach the point where capture of the enemy's king is imminent inevitable, and then stop.</p>
  <p>If you block the check with another check, then the capture of your king was not inevitable.  You had a way out.</p>
  <p>Think of it like a nature documentary, which cuts away from the wolf chasing the cute baby deer right at the moment where the baby deer's capture is inevitable.  Everybody knows what happened, but we don't like to show it.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-05T17:16:22.820Z
Answers.Text: Do you have a reference for this history of checkmate? It’s not in the [wikipedia article on checkmate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate), though I know that’s by far a comprehensive source.
Answers.UserDisplayName: DavidH
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-05T17:04:07.330Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-04-05T17:04:07.330Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cort Ammon
Body: <p>Say my opponent puts me in check. If I move my queen to block the check and it also puts my opponent in check, is that legal?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-31T22:34:50.583Z
Comments.Text: Why the downvotes?
Comments.UserDisplayName: fartgeek
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-31T22:52:09.683Z
Comments.Text: I didn't downvote, but... I don't see why someone would suspect such a move to be illegal.  Maybe some motivation for the question would help.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Edward
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-04-01T02:12:28.687Z
Comments.Text: Yes, but still... we have many beginner questions on this site that would be answered by simply reading the rules or looking at the position for a few seconds, yet they do fine.
Comments.UserDisplayName: fartgeek
Tags: <rules><check><illegal-move>
Title: Is blocking a check with a check an illegal move?
ThreadText: # Is blocking a check with a check an illegal move?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-03-31)
  
  Say my opponent puts me in check. If I move my queen to block the check and it also puts my opponent in check, is that legal?
  
  **Tags:** rules, check, illegal-move
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Why the downvotes?  
  > **username_2**: I didn't downvote, but... I don't see why someone would suspect such a move to be illegal.  Maybe some motivation for the question would help.  
  > **username_1**: Yes, but still... we have many beginner questions on this site that would be answered by simply reading the rules or looking at the position for a few seconds, yet they do fine.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2021-03-31. Score: 11
  
  Yes, it is legal, since your king is no longer being attacked.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2021-04-06. Score: 3
  
  It is legal to block a check with a move that also gives check.
  This includes the case you ask about, where the blocker is a queen;
  this is a key tactic in queen endings.
  
  In general, a move that simultaneously parries a check and gives check
  is called a [cross-check](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-check).
  This can happen with any of the three ways to parry a check:
  
  + The King can move, discovering check;
  + the checking piece can be captured, giving either direct or discovered check;
    or
  + the check can be blocked, again with either direct or discovered check.
  
  [Tim Krabbé](https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/records/records.htm)
  cites two tournament games (Zarrouati-Brauckmann, Toulouse 1990;
  Cardona-Conejero, Mislata (Spain) 2003) each featuring a sequence of
  six(!) conecutive checks, and thus five consecutive cross-checks.
  These show four of the five kinds of cross-check listed above
  (including one where a Queen move both blocks and gives check,
  as **username_0** asked).
  The fifth kind, a block that discovers check, is illustrated twice in
  G.F.Anderson's 1919 problem cited on Wikipedia's "cross-check" page,
  and five times in the 1961 problem by the same G.F.Anderson —
  including three cases where the cross-check is both direct and discovered,
  i.e. a double check.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2021-04-06. Score: 2
  
  It is absolutly legal. A fun lichess study even did it some times: <https://lichess.org/study/1LK3rCAK> (it happened 5 times if I counted correctly, but not a lot with the queen :) )
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2021-04-06. Score: 1
  
  Yes, that move even has a proper name called cross-check
  
  Nowadays most chess programs/apps/websites implement complete FIDE rules. A quicker way to check might be to set up the board that reflects your case, and see if the program allows you to move that way
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: It's not true that "most chess programs/apps/websites implement complete FIDE rules". For example, consider how the game is scored when a player runs out of time and both players only have the king and one knight left. All websites I know would score this as a draw, violating the FIDE rules.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2021-04-05. Score: 0
  
  It is legal to block the check in a way which puts the opponent in check.
  
  The rule is easier to understand with some history. One can think of chess as a game which ends when one captures the enemy king. Indeed, there are some variants of Chess which do end this way. However, historically it was *highly* frowned upon to think about capturing a king. Capturing a queen was bad enough, but kings were not something a peasant just went around capturing. And so, the game of Chess evolved to not capture the enemy king. Instead, we reach the point where capture of the enemy's king is imminent inevitable, and then stop.
  
  If you block the check with another check, then the capture of your king was not inevitable. You had a way out.
  
  Think of it like a nature documentary, which cuts away from the wolf chasing the cute baby deer right at the moment where the baby deer's capture is inevitable. Everybody knows what happened, but we don't like to show it.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_9**: Do you have a reference for this history of checkmate? It’s not in the [wikipedia article on checkmate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate), though I know that’s by far a comprehensive source.  
  
  ---
  
  