TalkChess.com

1. Why a person can't move his/her king into the check ?
why it can't be accepted as a blunder . as we allow blunders which result a mate in one.

2. Why pieces other than pawns can't capture the 2 squares moved pawn by moving into the first square . ?
(en passant).

3. Why a king can't castle if it is in check ?

ChessMate wrote:1. Why a person can't move his/her king into the check ?

Because, this will disturb the space time continuum and cause the known universe to claps. Sending all of us to oblivion.

ChessMate wrote: 1. Why a person can't move his/her king into the check ?
suiside is against the law.

2. Why pieces other than pawns can't capture the 2 squares moved pawn by moving into the first square . ? (en passant).

3. Why a king can't castle if it is in check ?

see rule #1's answer

ChessMate wrote:1. Why a person can't move his/her king into the check ?
why it can't be accepted as a blunder . as we allow blunders which result a mate in one.

2. Why pieces other than pawns can't capture the 2 squares moved pawn by moving into the first square . ?
(en passant).

3. Why a king can't castle if it is in check ?

All these are rules for a game(Chess).
There is no "why" in a rule for one game. The person or persons that made the game of Chess over time, they used these rules. So we use these rules and not other for playing Chess. Just that.

ChessMate wrote:1. Why a person can't move his/her king into the check ?
why it can't be accepted as a blunder . as we allow blunders which result a mate in one.

The King must move out of check, if it can't and no pieces can interpose or capture the attacking piece the King is Checkmated. So if a person blunders into check they must takeback the move or the game is over.

2. Why pieces other than pawns can't capture the 2 squares moved pawn by moving into the first square . ?
(en passant).

It was designed for pawns only, and you can really see the importance of this in certain middlegame positions and as a restraining move in pawn endings.

3. Why a king can't castle if it is in check ?

Castles is a special move, and unless all conditions are met that move is nullified. It wouldn't make any sense to do it any other way. After all check is check, and the basic object of the game is to checkmate the King Check is used as a tactic to either slow the King, make it move one square or mate the King etc.

There are all kinds of chess variants, let them do the absurd

Murat wrote:

ChessMate wrote:1. Why a person can't move his/her king into the check ?

Because, this will disturb the space time continuum and cause the known universe to claps. Sending all of us to oblivion.

Murat wrote:

ChessMate wrote:1. Why a person can't move his/her king into the check ?

Because, this will disturb the space time continuum and cause the known universe to claps. Sending all of us to oblivion.

Back to the Future Regards,
Dr. Emmet Brown

Terry McCracken wrote:
Back to the Future Regards,
Dr. Emmet Brown

Great Scott !!!

Good memory "Doc"

Rules were made for breaking...
even by experienced players!

Check out http://www.colossus.demon.co.uk/bcc/fun ... nstuff.htm and scroll down to the 'How to cheat at chess...' section.

4. Since a King is allowed to castle with each of the rooks on its flanks, why shouldn't the King be allowed to castle with a King pawn promoted to a rook? (assuming it meets the usual requirements of not being in check, not passing through check, etc)