03 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by razor2007Chess does not live in its own world isiolated from logic and common sense. I think it is fair to put its rules up to debate. And to me, having to tell my opponent he made an illegal move, instead of taking advantage of it and winning seems like an absurd notion. Why should I tell my opponent he mesed up and let him take back his move? I've dropped my queen, which is almost the same as getting checkmated in most games. I've never gotten a takeback. This rule is akin to having your opponent stumble in a wrestling match and just when you have him pinned, you tell him he really shouldn't have stumbled because it would throw away the match. Then, you kindly help him up and continue the fight as if nothing had happened. WHY?! It seems to go against common sense and chess is not immune from that.
We may simply comment that the king can not be moved into check because those are the rules of Chess.
It is a self-serving end, but hardly circular reasoning.
IN chess, the king can not be put into check. A stalemate occurs when no moves other than those putting the king in check exist while the king is not in check. Your logic would be true if chess as a submission of a "retractor" move that would allow a played to take back his last move.
BTW: I think your explanation is circular.
03 Feb 06
You're viewing this out of perspective. Chess is a game and IS in its own world seperate from comparison to real life as well as other sports.
In the real world, castles don't move, a knight can't jump over other humans in most cases, a battlefield is a lot more than eight distinguishable files and ranks, people don't move in turns, no one would restrict the movement of their own attackers to certain patterns......
I could go on for a LONG time. If we were to rectify Chess so that it made perfect sense when viewed from the frame of reality, it would BE reality.
The fact is that the organization that governs the play of chess, FIDE states in it rules that the king may not be moved into check, so we must comply.
03 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by razor2007Its rules have to be consistent and sensible. While it is a game, it is not excluded from these basic principles. Games have to make sense too and in fact, they have rules so that they do make sense and have a measure of consistency.
You're viewing this out of perspective. Chess is a game and IS in its own world seperate from comparison to real life as well as other sports.
In the real world, castles don't move, a knight can't jump over other humans in most cases, a battlefield is a lot more than eight distinguishable files and ranks, people don't move in turns, no one would restric ...[text shortened]... chess, FIDE states in it rules that the king may not be moved into check, so we must comply.
Of course chess is not an imitation of life, Knights don't really move in Ls and so on, but that doesn't change anything. I'm not asking for real life, only for a small modification. I don't think a game should have a rule in which you must save your opponent from imminent defeat. This is not a call to make chess the same as real life, it is a call to make it more logical. If your goal is to win, the rule does not make sense.
I also am not questioning that moving into check is illegal, I am questioning its purpose and think it is unnecessary. And rememberer, we do not HAVE to comply, we can create a new chess variant and petition for change. I for example do intend to pose the FIDE with the same questions I've had in this thread. I hope that I am mistaken and that this rule is actually well founded in logic, but I don't see it now. The only advantages I see is that games may last a little longer and thus novices will not be discouraged as easily. However, even this seems weak because if they have to make the illegal move to realize it and do not pay serious consequences, they will not learn as quickly.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyYeah but if everyone who didn't like the way things are done split off and form their own little faction......oh wait that happened once with regards to religion and squabbles over catholic dogma.......and now we have about 80 gozillion subcatagories of protestants (which I am btw). If the FIDE says we cannot move into check....I am 100% sure there is sound logic and reason for it.
And rememberer, we do not HAVE to comply, we can create a new chess variant and petition for change. I for example do intend to pose the FIDE with the same questions I've had in this thread. I hope that I am mistaken and that this rule is actually well founded in logic, but I don't see it now. b]
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyChess is suposed to be an intelectual game where you win through good planning and good play not by a fluke. I consider it to be somewhat of a gentleman's (gentlewoman's) game where there is some well respected decorum and respect for your opponents where you do not take immediate advantage of a silly play to end the game immediatly. It just sounds like sour grapes to me. You have probably lost a few games to players you consider inferior who have probably made the blunder of moving into check before they eventually finnished you. It's a game, it has rules, follow them! If you can't handle that then go ahead and create a game that you do like but do not call it chess
Its rules have to be consistent and sensible. While it is a game, it is not excluded from these basic principles. Games have to make sense too and in fact, they have rules so that they do make sense and have a measure of consistency.
Of course chess is not an imitation of life, Knights don't really move in Ls and so on, but that doesn't change anythin ...[text shortened]... al move to realize it and do not pay serious consequences, they will not learn as quickly.
GV
04 Feb 06
The current rules of chess are consistent. One of your main supports for being able to capture the king after it has moved into check is that it is consistent with reality. You keep saying that currently the rules do nto make sense and are not sonsistent, when in fact they are consistent and make sense in and of themselves, as they are intended to be.
I agree completely witht eh above posters. What do we learn from capturing the king after it has moved into check?
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by irishhebrew82There are already many chess variants. If there really were another with minor modification it wouldn't be a big deal.
Yeah but if everyone who didn't like the way things are done split off and form their own little faction......oh wait that happened once with regards to religion and squabbles over catholic dogma.......and now we have about 80 gozillion subcatagories of protestants (which I am btw). If the FIDE says we cannot move into check....I am 100% sure there is sound logic and reason for it.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by Nighthawk62Chess would remain an intellectual game and most wins would be the result of planning and calculation. In fact, it would actually make chess a little more difficult because you also have to remember that moving into check loses you the game. In any case, do you think it would be often that chess players move into check and commit suicide?
Chess is suposed to be an intelectual game where you win through good planning and good play not by a fluke. I consider it to be somewhat of a gentleman's (gentlewoman's) game where there is some well respected decorum and respect for your opponents where you do not take immediate advantage of a silly play to end the game immediatly. It just sounds like ...[text shortened]... handle that then go ahead and create a game that you do like but do not call it chess
GV
As for not immediately taking advantage of silly play. That is ridiculous and absolutely not what a good chess player would do. For example, if my opponent moves his queen out early and it is vulnerable, I will not wait until he recovers, you better believe that I will attack it and try to get a development lead and right after I will launch a devastating attack. Why in the world wouldd you give your opponent an easier time? The point of the game is to win, is it not?
Also, actually I have NEVER lost against a player who moved the king illegally into check. As for not handling the game, where in the hell would you get that idea? I'm pretty good at chess, I'm just trying to integrate the rules into a more logical framework, and it seems hard to do it. I don't want to create my own game, but I do think it would be nice if some of the rules in chess were made more sensical.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by razor2007It is not really about reality, it is about the spirit of competition. Having to tell your opponent that he made a move that would result in a loss and than having him play a different move seems to be against the spirity of competition. You are trying to win after all. If you think that this is consistent with the nature of competition, please explain.
The current rules of chess are consistent. One of your main supports for being able to capture the king after it has moved into check is that it is consistent with reality. You keep saying that currently the rules do nto make sense and are not sonsistent, when in fact they are consistent and make sense in and of themselves, as they are intended to be.
I ...[text shortened]... witht eh above posters. What do we learn from capturing the king after it has moved into check?
And about learning, the player capturing the king wouldn't learn much, but the player losing hopefully will.
04 Feb 06
1 edit
Putting an opponent's king in check is a forcing move. Your opponent must respond to the move. It is the dagger thrust at your heart; it cannot be ignored. It is the only time in chess a player has to move in a particular way.
LIke a boxer's fake punch, players can use check to move an opponent's defense.
The announcement of check is just a courtesy, a time saver. Why allow your opponent to waste 20 minutes on a move, when he has to remove his king from check.
To argue for breaking the rules of check displays a lack of understanding of the game, and no appreciation of checkmate.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by foilYou misunderstood the thread. It is not about putting your opponent's king in check.
Putting an opponent's king in check is a forcing move. Your opponent [b]must respond to the move. It is the dagger thrust at your heart; it cannot be ignored. It is the only time in chess a player has to move in a particular way.
LIke a boxer's fake punch, players can use check to move an opponent's defense.
The announcement of check is ...[text shortened]... ules of check displays a lack of understanding of the game, and no appreciation of checkmate.[/b]