Hi
As a beginner chess player, I’m never sure as to when I may put a king in check.
There’s only 1 rule really. At the end of your turn your king can not be in check.
If it was at the beginning of the turn and you have no way to rectify it you lose. If it wasn’t, but you have no way to make a move that doesn’t put it in check you draw.
There are no rules about when you can put your opponent’s king in check.
Chess is a game of attack, not defense.
You want to put your opponent’s king in check as often as possible, since it forces them to make a move to defend it (generally speaking).
You can check with any piece, but you must be aware that having the king take your high-value piece is a possibility.
Just play some games - you’ll figure it out.
You cannot castle through check, even if your king ends up not in check at the end of it.
This is from wikipedia, but there are many cites on the suject:
The correct name for a “castle” is a “rook”. Castling is a move involving moving the king and a rook in a unique way. You can find references for this online.
Technically, as long as you’re operating within the legal maneuvers of the game, you can put the king in check whenever you want.
In the examples you mentioned (moving a queen/rook/bishop directly next to a king), you are free to do this as you please, however, the king may or may not be able to capture your piece. If you place your opponents king in check, and the king is able to capture your piece (more on that below), it was likely a legal, but senseless move (unless it was part of a grand strategy).
Your opponent’s king cannot capture your offending piece if your piece is protected by another one of your pieces. The king cannot “move into harm’s way” otherwise it would be committing suicide. It can only be captured/cornered by your pieces. This is one of the ways that the king differs from other pieces.
Generally, you should not place your opponents king in check just for the sake of checking the king. Otherwise, this becomes a wasted move.
Here are some valid reasons for placing the king in check, even though it may not result in an imminent checkmate:
I’m sure there are other reasons, but those are the three that come to mind.
For what it’s worth, using computer based Chess games is a good way to solidify your understanding of the legal moves, since they will not allow you to make illegal moves.
Have fun and good luck!
Nitpick:
There is at least one more ‘rule’ regarding kings and checks - you cannot castle your king through a square which is ‘under attack’ by your opponent.
For example, the white king cannot castle on the king’s side if, say, there is a black knight on g3 since that knight is attacking the f1 square through which the white king must pass while castling.
ETA: beat to it (I still think in classical chess notation, e.g. PK4, and got slowed down in the conversion!)
To be more precise - you cannot check a king with a king. You can only use it to facilitate a checkmate.
Very glad to hear this, it means I don’t know less about chess than I thought I did. And I don’t know much.
I’m not sure how close to the king I can move my pieces to check him.Let’s say the opponent’s king is at h-4 and I have an opportunity to move my king to h-3 or my rook to g-4 can I do so without losing my pieces? Can the king take my pieces if I move to those coordinates (one square from the king)?
nm. ninja’ed unto irrelevance.
Yowzah. Those first two sentences are ridiculous. There’s a well known adage: Patzer sees check; patzer gives check. (“Patzer” being a clueless player.) And of course, chess is about defense as well as offense. A famous rule of thumb: Black should not take the initiative until White makes a mistake.
The post’s last two sentences are accurate. A player can check with any piece when it’s his turn to move. The only exception I can think of is that you can’t move a piece that’s shielding your king from check – e.g. If your rook is between your king and your opponent’s queen then you can’t move that rook.
Anyway, hope the OP enjoys learning chess. It’s a fascinating game with a long colorful history.
You cannot put your King adjacent to the opponent King. In effect you’re putting yourself into check by doing so. (That’s not strictly true by the rules, but it’s the conceptual motivation for the rule prohibition.)
You can put any other piece adjacent to a King. Which may threaten the King. (e.g. Rook on rank or file, Bishop on diagonal, or Queen on either.) But in any of those cases the King also threatens your piece. If your piece is not itself protected by another piece of yours, the opponent will simply use his King to capture your attacker on his next move, thereby escaping check.
That might be a valid tactic if by doing so you’re pulling his King into your trap. If not, you’re simply feeding your power pieces into his meat grinder.
Said another way: The whole point of the Queen, Rook, and Bishop is that they attack from a distance. They don’t attack any better up close.
Are you not allowed to put your King in check, or is it just stupid to do? Essentially you’re giving up.
If your rook is between your king and your opponent’s queen then you can’t move that rook.
Can the queen take the rook and put the king in check in that case?
Think of it like this. The king is just like any other piece in all respects bar one.
Alike:
It can move, and it has its own limited set of moves.
It can capture opposition pieces.
Special:
If it is captured you lose. This rule is so absolute that the game ends one move early, when it is impossible for the king not to be captured.
Because of this special nature, there are a set of subsidiary rules that are derived from it. You can’t move your king into a position where it can be taken on the next move. (To do so is essentially forfeiting the match, so in order for the match to continue, you can’t have the king commit suicide). The castling rules include the idea of not moving though danger.
In principle a king could capture the other king. But the rule about never moving your king into a position where it can be taken on the next move means this situation can never actually occur.
If you move one of your pieces next to the opposite king, there is no reason why it should not capture it, so long as doing so does not move into a position where it could be captured itself on the next move. The tactic of covering a square with one of your pieces, and then moving another piece onto that square in a later move so that the king is in check, but cannot itself take the threatening piece (and is thus forced to move, or take the threatening piece with a higher value piece and initiating a possibly damaging exchange of pieces) are both classic tactics.
Yes. This is known as “pinning” a piece. (The rook is pinned by the queen) A great way of capturing pieces, and often the start of a devastating end game.
(Assuming a pin on a diagonal.)
There is nothing incorrect about “castle.” It’s just fallen out of favor. Staunton, for example, used the terms interchangeably.
The word rook comes from the Persian word for chariot (rukh), so it really doesn’t make much sense that it is used to describe that piece in the west (where, after all, the piece is represented as a castle for obscure historical reasons).
A chess question of my own since the OP has received answers. The teacher who sponsors the chess club where I work is, himself, an excellent player. He has told me several times that being good at chess is indicative only of being good at chess i.e. it doesn’t correlate to high intelligence, analytical ability, or academic success. Do those of you who have a deep involvement with the game agree or disagree with him?
You can put any other piece adjacent to a King. Which may threaten the King. (e.g. Rook on rank or file, Bishop on diagonal, or Queen on either.) But in any of those cases the King also threatens your piece. If your piece is not itself protected by another piece of yours, the opponent will simply use his King to capture your attacker on his next move, thereby escaping check.
Thanks for that LSL Guy. That was bothering me. So there should be distance of more than one square when checking a king with a queen, rook or bishop. If those pieces are adjacent to the king, the king can take them. Is that right?
Yes, a king can capture any piece which is adjacent to it. So if you put the opposing king in check by moving a piece next to it, your opponent can get out of check by capturing the piece.
The way to avoid this is by having a second piece defending the first piece. You can, for example, move your queen next to your opponent’s king if you have a rook covering the square the queen is in. Now your opponent can’t capture your queen with his king because your rook would capture his king in turn.