1. Is Kxf5 legal?
The rook pins the knight on f5 to the king on f8. No other black piece protects f5.
Sometimes. A king may capture the pinned piece itself when the destination is otherwise safe. But a king may not capture a different piece on a square attacked by a pinned defender. The pin restricts movement; it does not switch off attacks.
| Question | Answer | Required test |
|---|---|---|
| Can the king capture the pinned piece itself? | Sometimes | Is its square attacked after it is removed? |
| Can the king capture something defended by a pinned piece? | No | The pinned defender's attack still counts |
| Can an ordinary piece make that capture? | Often | Losing an ordinary piece is legal; losing the king is not |
Choose Legal or Illegal. Your first answer scores, then the board marks the proposed king capture.
The rook pins the knight on f5 to the king on f8. No other black piece protects f5.
This looks like Position 1, but Black has added a pawn on e6.
The bishop checks the king on g4. The knight on e7 is absolutely pinned by the rook.
The e7-pawn is pinned to its king by the rook on e1.
The rook on e7 is absolutely pinned on the e-file, but it attacks h7 along the seventh rank.
The bishop on g7 is pinned to the king on h8 by the white bishop on e5.
The knight on f5 is pinned only to the queen on f8, not the king.
The bishop on b3 pins the rook on f7 to the black king on g8.
Then compare this rule with Can a Pinned Piece Give Checkmate? and practise the wider motif in Pin in Chess.
Yes, if the capture square is not attacked by any enemy piece after the capture. The pin does not automatically make the piece safe to take.
Sometimes. An absolute pin restricts the piece's legal movement, but the king must still check every enemy attack on the destination square.
Sometimes, but a relative pin gives no special king-safety permission. The piece and every defender continue to attack their normal squares.
No when the pinned defender attacks the capture square. Attacks from pinned pieces still count against king moves.
Yes. If its normal capture pattern reaches that piece's square, the enemy king may not capture there.
No. A pin may stop an ordinary defensive move, but it does not erase attacked squares for king safety.
The captured piece does not automatically attack the square it occupies. If no other enemy piece attacks that square after removal, the king may capture it.
Remove the captured piece mentally, place the king on that square, and scan every enemy pawn, knight, king, bishop, rook and queen attack.
Yes if the knight's square has no other defender. The knight's pin alone neither permits nor forbids the capture.
No. A pinned knight still attacks all of its normal L-shaped squares for the purpose of king safety.
Only when the pawn's square is otherwise safe and is not protected by the enemy king or another piece.
No. A pinned pawn still attacks its two forward diagonal squares, so the king cannot enter either attacked square.
Sometimes. Check attacks from the enemy king and other pieces, including any rook or queen revealed behind the captured rook.
No if the rook attacks that square along its rank or file. The rook's attacked squares still count while it is pinned.
Sometimes, provided the bishop's square is not defended after the bishop is removed.
No if the bishop attacks the destination diagonal. The bishop remains an attacking piece even when it cannot legally leave its pin line.
Yes only when the queen's square is not defended. Because queens are often supported, the full attack scan is especially important.
No. A pinned queen still attacks along its ranks, files and diagonals for king-move legality.
No. It can make some moves illegal without removing the piece's attack pattern from the board.
No. A relatively pinned piece remains legally movable and continues to attack normally.
Yes for king safety when the restriction comes from exposing the defender's own king. This is the key pinned-piece exception beginners miss.
No. The kings attack all adjacent squares, so a king may never capture onto a square adjacent to the enemy king.
Only if the pinning piece's square is safe after the capture. Capturing the pinner may end the pin, but it does not override other attacks.
Only when the destination is not attacked. A checking piece may be pinned and still deliver a valid check, so the king needs a fully legal response.
A queen may sometimes move onto a square defended only by an absolutely pinned piece because losing the queen is legal. A king may never move onto an attacked square.
Often yes, because an ordinary piece may legally be captured on the next move. Whether that trade is good is a tactical question, not king-move legality.
Yes. A pinned piece can protect the checking piece or cover an escape square, so its attacks may be essential to a mating net.
Yes. A king may not castle through or onto a square attacked by a pinned piece.
Yes. A correctly implemented server checks all attacks on the king's destination and rejects a capture onto a square controlled by a pinned defender.
The destination is usually protected by a pawn, knight, distant line piece or enemy king that was easy to overlook. A pinned defender may also still control it.
Imagine the position after the capture, then scan pawn attacks, knight jumps, king adjacency, diagonals, files and ranks in that order.
Yes. Removing it can open a rook, bishop or queen line that did not exist before the capture.
Yes. The captured piece may have been blocking a line from a rook, bishop or queen, so always evaluate the resulting board.
A pin is only one fact. Put the king on the destination square and ask whether any enemy piece attacks it in the resulting position.
Practise pairs of nearly identical positions where one extra defender changes Kxpiece from legal to illegal. That contrast builds reliable king-safety vision.
Use the main Pin in Chess trainer for absolute, relative, partial and cross-pins, then return to these king-capture cases.
Build reliable pin and king-safety calculation.
or create a ChessWorld username
Already have an account? Log in