Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I believe that part of the answer to the last question is incorrect--if a
player accidentally knocks over his king while reaching for a cup of tea,
not only does that player not resign (the FAQ is correct on this point),
the player is not even compelled to move his king (the FAQ says he is so
compelled).  This is clear from a careful reading of FIDE rule 7.2.

I realize that you have said that a king cannot move within an adjoining
space of the other king.  But, what about this scenario:
Knight protects space that king is to move, but that space is adjoining to
other king.  The adversary cannot take my king b/c of the knights
protection, but would be able to if the knight were not protecting.  Is
this move legal?

I recently played a game of chess against my girlfriend.  She insisted that
it is legal for a queen to move like a knight as long as it does not jump
over another piece.  After consulting your page it is fairly obvious that
this is false.

My question is: are their any variations on the game where this is
allowed. Do you have any clue where she may have gotten this idea?  She is
very insistant!

Thank you.

Great question! The answer is, yes! In the Middle Ages, in parts of Europe,
during the evolution of Shatranj to modern Chess, many people gave the
Queen the ability to also move as a Knight (I don't know about it not
leaping though). This type of Queen is now known as the Amazon and this
variant as Amazon Chess. See the following page on this site: 
 http://www.chessvariants.com/diffmove.dir/amazone.html
For specific information about the Amazon and both old and new variants
that use this piece, see the following page on this site:
 http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/amazon.html

No. There is no such move in the standard rules of chess. 
You can only get another Queen by promoting a pawn.

Hi,

I was playing a game w/ my uncle and i took all his pieces except the
king, and he lept up and said that the game was a draw because all of his
pieces had gone except the king. Is this rule true? Was the game a draw or
could i have gone on 2 win? (with 2 rooks and a queen)

Thanx

Can a player choose to pass? During a game can a plaer skip their own turn,
and have it count as a move, say if the 50 count was on for the
verification of a stale mate? You may answer to kristinastoney@yahoo.ca 

Thankyou for your time.

Thank you so much.  I had a question and the answer was at my fingertip.  I
also read further and found more informative answers.

Thanks again.

hello,

The other day I was playing chess with a friend. Soon, I had a queen,
bishop, and king; he only had a king.He moved his king to the other side
and said its a draw. I didn't beleive him but i didn't say any thing
because he always saying how bad he is at chess and i didn't know all the
rules to chess. Anyway is that true? Would be a draw or is he bull$#!*ing
me?


Thx

There is no such rule about moving one's King to the other side of the
board being a draw. You should have continued the game.

In the answer to question 'Is it allowed to castle which a rook that is
attacked or goes through check?', isn't the example wrong?
By castling, wouldn't the King be in check?

Wouldn't it be, in fact, impossible to move the rook 'through' an
attacked position? Since the only position the rook goes 'through' is
the one position where the King is going to end up.

'Wouldn't it be, in fact, impossible to move the rook 'through' an
attacked position? Since the only position the rook goes 'through' is
the one position where the King is going to end up.'

Not when you're castling Queenside. Then the King ends the move on square
c1, the Rook on d1. The Rook passes over b1 and the King does not. The
King always moves two squares when castling to either side.

can the king take another piece
example ...if the opponents queen is placed next to the king putting him
in check mate can the king take the queen

my dad and sister were just wanted to learn how to play this was a great
page that has helped them out alot thankyou for this.
russ

My young son (7) has been interested in Chess since Harry Potter, and on
going to junior school found several boys with the same interest. He's
had a few questions recently as he's become more serious with the game.
We found your site at home using Ask Jeeves, and he has found it so easy
to understand with the pictures & the B4 to B6 that he's going to ask
his
teachers if he'll be aloud to view the site at school because it was
explained so clearly.
Thanks!!!....
John & Maffy.

The King moves two cells as a first move only if it performs a 'castling'
move.  Other than that particular condition, it always moves one cell.

You do not get a piece back for getting your King across and back.

When one side has only a King and a Bishop, and the other side has only a
King and a Knight, the game will end in a draw -- but not because there is
any rule which says the game is a draw. It will be a draw because neither
side has enough material to checkmate the other side. If the players did
not choose to call it a drawn game right away, it should eventually end in
a draw by the 50 moves rule.

Hi Ryan,

Go here http://www.chessvariants.com/onthese/membership.html and follow
the directions.

To play games on Game Courier, go to http://play.chessvariants.com/pbm/ and
follow the instructions there.

For the definition of clique, follow this link:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=clique

Anyway, what you're telling me is that the words nerd and geek have no
objective meaning, and certain people are simply using these words to make
fun of other people. In that case, no one who plays Chess is truly a nerd
or a geek in any important objective sense. They are just meaningless
names used by some people to bully others into being more like them. What
matters most is that you remain true to yourself. If you enjoy Chess,
continue to play it and don't worry what others will label you for it.
The truth about many kids is that they are just looking for any excuse to
pick on other kids. If some kid doesn't play Chess, he might choose to
pick on you for playing Chess. But if you didn't play Chess, he might
choose to pick on you for something else. The main thing you can expect
growing up is that kids pick on kids. Whether or not you play Chess has no
bearing on this fact. So there is no reason to give in.

Chess is not a bad thing at all. It is great for helping you improve your
reasoning skills. When you're good at Chess, it is a legitimate source of
pride. And using your mind in the way that Chess requires actually helps
protect you from depression. When some kid doesn't appreciate Chess and
chooses to make fun of others for playing it, it's a sign of insecurity,
not a sign that he is hip or cool and knows something that you don't. On
the contrary, if you enjoy and play Chess, you know something that he
doesn't.

Orthodox (Mad Queen) design analysis:
# squares: 64
# piece types: 6
Initial piece density: 50%
Piece values: P1, N3, B3, R5, Q9
Power density: 1.22
Exchange Gradient: 0.50
Ave. Game Length: #M = (3.5*6)/(1.22*0.5) = 34 moves

Excellently put Fergus,

Ryan, I'm an average player of 1500 to 1600. My current rating is a 1400
@U.S. Chess Live. Just like Fergus, I except chess as a whole, not a
separated piece. When I play, I tend to practice out theories from other
styles.  As you can see my theories haven't worked for me. It's nice to
see another open minded person join our group.

Perhaps the number mentioned is the rating assigned by a computer opponent
that evaluates the player, achieved without playing in tournaments against
human beings?

If so, I'd recommend along with Gary Gifford that the player take part in
a tournament at his earliest convenience. News of a chess prodigy would
help to promote the game. And I don't think it would be at all bad for
the youngster's chess career to come forth and be recognized at that
point.

Ryan, 

This is not the proper forum for the discussion of ozone depletion,
Walmart, Bush vs Kerry, Iraq, The Passion of the Christ, etc., etc., etc.

If you are not discussing Chess variants or very closely related topics,
please post to an appropiate forum for those topics and not here.

Let me reiterate and add to what Michael Nelson has said. The Web is full
of forums on nearly any conceivable topic you can think of. If you want to
discuss subjects unrelated to this site, go to the appropriate site and
discuss them there. This site's comment areas are for discussions of
Chess variants and for comments specific to the contents of individual
pages. It is not for general discussion of any and every topic.

Let me add that some forums on the web have become cesspools of trolling,
baiting, flaming, and other nonsense. This site is an oasis of reasonable,
peaceful discussion, and that is mainly because we limit our discussions
to Chess variants and closely related subjects. If we started discussing
controversial subjects here, this site could turn into a place of
factions, fighting, and hostility. But that's not what this site is
about. It is about bringing together people who share a common interest in
a mutual spirit of good will and friendship. Let's keep it that way.

With that said, I'll add that there is nothing wrong, per se, with
discussing controversial subjects. If you want to discuss such issues,
feel free to go to a forum where they are being discussed. My main concern
is that doing it here would get in the way of what this site is really all
about. The ozone layer and Walmart may not seem like such controversial
subjects, but inviting discussion of them here would open the door to even
more controversial subjects.

I have a couple questions concerning the three-fold repetition rule. The
official FIDE version of the rule is:

The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move,
when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by
sequential repetition of moves) 
(a) is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and
declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or 
(b) has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move. 
Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player
has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares,
and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. 
Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en
passant can no longer be captured or if the right to castle has been
changed temporarily or permanently.

My questions are on the last sentence. Consider this position:
W: Kc1 Nh1 Pc5
B: Kb8 Rc8 Nh8 Pd5
Black has just moved ...d5. The knights are then shuffled around,
resulting in the position repeating two more times. However, the rule
says
that 'positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured
en passant can no longer be captured.' In this case, the pawn cannot be
captured en passant in any of the three positions (the white pawn is
pinned). Are all three positions considered the same, even though the
right to capture the pawn en passant would have changed in the absence of
the pin?

My second question is about the 'right to castle' provision. Consider
this position:
W: Ke1 Ra1 Nb5
B: Kh4 Bf8
Suppose white's king and rook have not moved. The knight and bishop move
around, resulting in the position repeating two more times. However, in
doing so, the bishop checks the white king and is blocked by the knight.
Since the right to castle has been changed temporarily, are all three
positions the same?

Also, from that position, suppose that instead of white being checked,
white moves her knight between the king and rook. Since this temporarily
changes the right to castle, are all the positions the same?

Consider this position:
W: Ke1 Rh1 Bb2
B: Ka8 Ra7
From here, it is impossible for white to ever castle, even if his king
and
rook have not moved. Does it make a difference here if the right to
castle
is changed temporarily (e.g. the black rook checks the white king and is
blocked by the bishop)?

I have a question about a chess move, here is a diagramm of the board:
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][p][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]     Caps are black, lowercase are white
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][P]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[p][k][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][K][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

I am black, my opponent moves his king to A2, is this legal or not?

If this is the square you're proposing the white King to move to, I don't
see how the move puts him in check.

[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][p][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]     Caps are black, lowercase are white
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][P]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[p][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[k][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][K][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

un pas un

is there such a rule?

this is where a pawn is next to the opponent's pawn and you can take it

Please explain

Can kings check other kings? No. A king may not move to a square next to another king, because then this move would put the king that moves also into check, which is illegal.

It is possible to make a move with a king such that the other king is checked (or even mated): suppose that whites king is between whites rook and blacks king on one line. When the king moves away from the line, he discloses the check by the rook.

Hello,
I saw Laura's previous question on 'can a king put another king into
check'.  I also saw that your answer was a difinitive 'no.'  My
question is still the same, just a little different.  

When I was young growing up in the 80's and 90's I played this computer
game 'Battle Chess' which I'm sure you may be aware of.  In this game,
it was possible to put a king into checkmate (and only checkmate) with
another king but only under certain circumstaces, but i forget what the
condition was (perhaps when only protected by a pawn?)

I have no clue, but I KNOW (or at least think) that there's some way to
put king in checkmate with king.. Is this an obscure rule? or something
weird in the game?