Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Elmo, did u get an answer to your question because my friend and I had the
exact same situation?

__|__|wb
bk|wk|
--|--|

wb= white bishop
wk= white king
bk = black king

I moved my wk up diagonally to the left to put his king in 'checkmate',
he cannot take my king because he would be in check correct?

Is this not a checkmate situation?

Regarding the question of whether you can move one king directly up
against
the other since the moving king would be protected by the bishop.
I see questions like this all the time from new players.
Think of it this way: What if the point of the game were to take your
opponent's king rather than put him in checkmate?
Whoever loses his king first loses the game. In the situation noted
earlier (a king that could be captured by the other king except that the
moving king is also protected by a bishop), once one king took the other
king, the game would be over. In other words that bishop would never be
able to take the other king because the game would have ended as soon as
the first king (the one supposedly protected by its bishop) was captured
by the other.
Anyway, that's a simplified way of looking at it. However, as someone
else noted, the original movement of the king up against the opposing
king
was illegal anyway. You can't put your own king in check, period,
whether
or not your king is supposedly protected by another piece that would
retake the piece that took the king.

Levi,

You are right. Your opponent is wrong. Declaring check is nothing but an
expected courtesy. Whether or not you declare check has no bearing on what
moves are subsequently legal or illegal for your opponent. Whenever you
are in check, whether or not it has been declared, you must move out of
check if you can. If you can't, then you lose -- even when you opponent
has not noticed or declared it. If you stay in check during your move,
that move was illegal and must be taken back.

No, the first-move doublestep option is only for non-capturing moves. So a
pawn that begins on g2 can only move to g3 or g4 (if not obstructed) or
capture on f3 or h3 (if an enemy piece is there).

Your idea might make an interesting chess variant, though.

As I understand the term, a gambit is a tactic in which a player offers a
material sacrifice in exchange for what he hopes is a positional
advantage. Familiar openings like the 'Queen's Gambit' involve playing
a pawn to a square where the opponent can take it. (Queen's Gambit means
the pawn offered is on the Queen's side.) But taking the pawn,
presumably, gives the gambit-player a better position. They speak of
openings such as 'Queen's Gambit Accepted,' in which the other player
takes the pawn, and 'Queen's Gambit Declined,' in which he doesn't. I
don't think I've heard of any openings in which a unit of greater value
than a pawn is offered.

'Gambit' has entered the language as a word used in general conflict
situations, for risky maneuvers like this.

My children ask the following question:

When the black pawn is in its original position and an opposing white
pawn
is two squares away diagonally, can the black pawn, on its first move,
take two steps diagonally to capture the white pawn?  Or must the first
move of the black pawn be only straight ahead?

Ryan,

Now, You got me interested to what your rating might be. Ryan, even if
you
don't have a high rating, that's fine.  We're all here for chess as a
whole. The problem is that you made a statement and now we're asking for
you to support it.

Sincerely Pete

Bill -

On its first move, a pawn may move 1 or 2 squares forward.  Or, it may 
capture, but never more than one square diagonally.

Mike,

The king may only take a piece to get out of check, as long as the piece
is not being protected by a fellow piece. Otherwise it is checkmate.

Sincerely Pete Leyva

my question is when playing can any piece jump a pawn or is it only select
pieces that can jump a pawn and make and take the other opponents pieces