04 Feb 06
The rule of 'no self-check' emphasizes the point that the King is the most important piece on the board. It's not logically necessary, of course; but artistically, I'd hate to see games end with a simple capture of the enemy King. I much prefer the rules as they are. It's not good enough simply to wait around and hope the opponent leaves the King in check; you must force the capture of the King.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyThis modification is too minor to even be called a variant. 5-minute chess sometimes allows the capture of the enemy King, and it is not commonly perceived as a chess variant.
There are already many chess variants. If there really were another with minor modification it wouldn't be a big deal.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemummm... you guys are taking this discussion way out of proportion. One of the rules of chess is that you must get out of check. However, if self check was allowed then you could take a pinned piece and check the opponents king and he would have to get out check. If we allow self checks then the concept of the absolute pin becomes problematic.
The rule of 'no self-check' emphasizes the point that the King is the most important piece on the board. It's not logically necessary, of course; but artistically, I'd hate to see games end with a simple capture of the enemy King. I much prefer the rules as they are. It's not good enough simply to wait around and hope the opponent leaves the King in check; you must force the capture of the King.
However, the reason that you must get out of check is really a result of the role of honor in the history of chess. Getting out of check and checkmate and never actually capturing the King is a result of people in the middle ages seeing it as crude and mean to just take someone's king. Rather, the game is just called over only when the king cannot escape which is, according to the historical scholars, more dignified in the eyes of the middle age players during the early days of chess.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyOkay...... What if your opponent makes an illegal queen move, and puts it on a square where you can take it? Would you want to be able to do that, even though the rules state you have to make him take his move back and make a legal one?
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 devasta ...[text shortened]... ld wouldd you give your opponent an easier time? The point of the game is to win, is it not?
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyOnly if it's a rook pawn. With any other pawn, it would always be a win because your "extra" moves would enable your king to move and still protect the pawn, while giving the other king a square to move to. It would completely undo all the theory we have about king and pawn endgames, and simplify it down to, whoever has the most pawns always wins.
Stalemate is not only the result of inept attackers and in fact, stalemate doesn't make much sense either. Sure, your opponent has no legal moves if you stalemate him, so what, then he should be stuck and you should get another turn, just like in checkers and real life. Then, you would probably be able to win with your extra turns. This would also eli ...[text shortened]... many draws, but not all of course. For example a king and pawn game would still be a draw.
This part of the debate is just silly antways. It's in the rules of chess that each side will take his turn, and neither side can, at any time, forego their turn. If one side, for whatever reason, can't legally make a move, the game must end.
04 Feb 06
Gambitzoid mkes na excellent points about pins here. If teh black queen is pinned against the king, what happens if the black queen moves and captures and put the white king in check? Whose move is it? White can "capture" the black king, but white can't move because his king is in check.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyIf you don't like the rules............... DON"T PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GV
04 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by razor2007Exactly, the rule does follow logic! Allowing the king to move into check but also forcing it to move out of check would be conflicting rules.
Gambitzoid mkes na excellent points about pins here. If teh black queen is pinned against the king, what happens if the black queen moves and captures and put the white king in check? Whose move is it? White can "capture" the black king, but white can't move because his king is in check.
but i do agree that if you do not unserstand why a rule is in place then you need to need to question why it exists. questioning rules or common practice is what the human race is all about, without it we would still be living in caves and hunting with wooden clubs ... "because thats the way it is and the way it had always been done" just doesn't cut it for me either. no-one should follow rules simply because they are there.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by GambitzoidI'd always understood this to be the main reason behind it: kings prefered it if people in their courts weren't running round saying stuff like 'haha, i took the king i took the king'. That kind of thing makes them feel a bit insecure.
However, the reason that you must get out of check is really a result of the role of honor in the history of chess. Getting out of check and checkmate and never actually capturing the King is a result of people in the middle ages seeing it as crude and mean to just take someone's king. Rather, the game is just called over only when the king cannot escape whi ...[text shortened]... scholars, more dignified in the eyes of the middle age players during the early days of chess.[/b]
04 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by GambitzoidNo, if your opponent takes a piece pinned to his king and checks you, he immediately loses.
ummm... you guys are taking this discussion way out of proportion. One of the rules of chess is that you must get out of check. However, if self check was allowed then you could take a pinned piece and check the opponents king and he would have to get out check. If we allow self checks then the concept of the absolute pin becomes problematic.
However, scholars, more dignified in the eyes of the middle age players during the early days of chess.
You wouldn't have to respond to his check. You would only take his king. The king is like the brain of a body, when it is removed from the body, everything else falls apart too. Thus, once you capture the enemy king, his pieces are no longer coordinated, no longer able to act, no longer threats. Thus, by taking his king, you make all his pieces useless and so you do not have to respond to threats against your king. It is just as in checkmate. When it is checkmate, all your opponents pieces are immobile, uncoordinated and no longer threats; the game is over. Cut off the head and the body will die.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyWhat if I had a zombie king? Not quite so sure of yourself now, are you?
You wouldn't have to respond to his check. You would only take his king. The king is like the brain of a body, when it is removed from the body, everything else falls apart too. Thus, once you capture the enemy king, his pieces are no longer coordinated, no longer able to act, no longer threats.
04 Feb 06
Originally posted by Natural ScienceThat is totally different. If you move the king into check, that would normally be allowed for his movement, the rule exists I guess, mostly to extend the game even when players make dumb mistakes. If you move the queen illegally, it would probably not follow its normal path of movement and so of course this would be inconsistent with the rules. The queen physically cannot make an illegal move, the king would physically be able to move into check, but is not allowed to so tactically inept players get another chance.
Okay...... What if your opponent makes an illegal queen move, and puts it on a square where you can take it? Would you want to be able to do that, even though the rules state you have to make him take his move back and make a legal one?