@Akbar2thegreat said in #10:
> Yes, but I have made the rule better.
> Remember when I suggested changes in rules of chess.
> One was about that absolute pinned pieces should not be able to control the pieces.
> And I had proper response for your words there.
> See: lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/my-opinion-two-chess-rules-should-be-revised#1
What if an argument can be made that the absolute pinned piece isn't actually perfectly immobilized because it can actually consider an exchange of kings on the chessboard? And, moreover, that hypothetical exchange of kings would end the game favorablly before your own King could be taken, ending the checkmate race. Therefore, that immoblized chess piece has influence on the squares it controls only because that piece is their king that would be taken if it went to such a square.
So, here's what I don't get about your suggestion. Isn't the tactical exchange of Kings not supposed to be something that should be considered in a real chess game? Why should this exchange consideration be allowed?
And, if that exchange consideration is allowed; then why can't a player move their king next to an opponent's king, if its protected? Their king can't legally take the opposing king, because its protected, right?
> Yes, but I have made the rule better.
> Remember when I suggested changes in rules of chess.
> One was about that absolute pinned pieces should not be able to control the pieces.
> And I had proper response for your words there.
> See: lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/my-opinion-two-chess-rules-should-be-revised#1
What if an argument can be made that the absolute pinned piece isn't actually perfectly immobilized because it can actually consider an exchange of kings on the chessboard? And, moreover, that hypothetical exchange of kings would end the game favorablly before your own King could be taken, ending the checkmate race. Therefore, that immoblized chess piece has influence on the squares it controls only because that piece is their king that would be taken if it went to such a square.
So, here's what I don't get about your suggestion. Isn't the tactical exchange of Kings not supposed to be something that should be considered in a real chess game? Why should this exchange consideration be allowed?
And, if that exchange consideration is allowed; then why can't a player move their king next to an opponent's king, if its protected? Their king can't legally take the opposing king, because its protected, right?