3. Consequently, a piece deprived of its right to move; which cannot capture nor exercise any threat to capture, obviously and by mathematical demonstration, cannot give check, inasmuch, as “check” merely is the threat by a piece to move and capture the adverse King. Therefore, whatever may be the normal area of movement belonging to a piece, whenever from any cause such piece loses its power of movement, then, It no longer can capture, nor exercise any threat of capture, upon the points contained within said area; and consequently such points so far as said immovable piece is concerned, may be occupied in safety by any adverse piece including the adverse King, for the reason that: An immovable piece cannot move; and not being able to move it cannot capture, and not being able to capture, it does not exercise any threat of capture, and consequently it cannot give check. This incongruity of permitting an immovable piece to give check constitutes the second mathematical blemish in the game of Chess, as at present constructed. This fallacy, the correction of which any schoolboy may mathematically demonstrate, is defended, even by many who would know better, if they merely would take time for reflection; by the inane assumption, that: A piece which admittedly is disqualified and rendered dormant by all the fundamentals of the science of Chess, and which therefore cannot legally move and consequently cannot legally capture anything; by some hocus-pocus may be made to move and to capture that _most_ valuable of _all_ prizes, the adverse King; and this at a time and under circumstances when, as is universally allowed, it cannot legally move against, nor legally capture _any other_ adverse piece. The basis of this illogical, illegal, and untenable assumption is: The pinned piece, belonging to that force which has the privilege of moving, can abandon its post, and capture the adverse King; this stroke ends the game and the game being ended, the pinning piece never can avail of the abandonment of the covering post by the pinned piece to capture the King thus exposed. The insufficiency of this subterfuge is clear to the mathematical mind. Its subtlety lies in confounding together things which have no connection, viz.: Admittedly the given body of Chess-pieces has the right to move, but it is of the utmost importance to note that this privilege of moving extends only to a single piece and from this privilege of moving the pinned piece is debarred by a specific and fundamental law of the game, which declares that: “A piece shall not by removing itself uncover the kindred King to the attack of a hostile piece.”