Originally posted by exigentskyCourtesy is why, my friend, courtesy.
It doesn't make sense to me that moving into check is not allowed in chess. Why not let the player decide. If he fails to see, the king will be captured and the game is over. If this isn't allowed, why should a player be allowed to move into a position that is mate in 3? I can't logically integrate this, why is it illegal?
Also, is there a rule that says that you must say check if the king is under attack?
Dude, the reasoning behind the rules is plain, obvious and easily identified 😉
They are there not because they make sense, but rather because it adds a whole lot of depth to the game. Think without the rule, a player can rush into attack without thought, simply because there is no chance of making a bad move forcing a draw. There is no way to draw. And what if one player has a knight and king, while the other has a king. Well, because one player only has to capture the king, they just play on and on hoping that the player with the king makes a blunder. Taking away these rules turns chess into a strictly win-lose game, where thought is not nessesary, and essentially makes material advantage the most important aspect. Chess should be better than that, better than just a game where the whole trick is to put the king in check in an inconspicuous way.
The way it is now, an opponent loses the game because you made a good plan, that he could not defend, the way your petitioning for, an opponent would lose the game simply because you got lucky, and he was caught up in something and failed to notice a check.
Basically, what I am saying is, you should win a game of chess by playing well and strategicly, not because your opponent missed something.
And why do you care? If a player misses a check, I should hope your better than that player anyways, so you would win either way.
And on a final note, I would point out that if it were a rule that you could simply take the king, alot less people would fail to see the check, because they would be aware of the rule, and they would not move into it. So that rule change wouldnt accomplish anything other than making people take longer for their moves to see if they're in check.
So you wanted to know why it's a rule, that's why.
P.S your thing about saying that castling would be like en passant, that's stupid. That's like saying if a queen move's through a square that your bishop is attacking, but doesnt land on that square, the bishop can still take it.
If you want to play a Chess variant, then play a variant. Until FIDE changes the international rules (which is incredibly doubtful in this particular case) you can't place or leave your King in check. There is no law that says rules must stand on some basis of logic. They exists because they do. There's really nothing more to it. This is a game, nothing more... so get over it.
Originally posted by exigentskyYou can't say that though. You can't compare this to a checkmate because in a checkmate situation, or in any situation currently, both kings can't be in check.
No, if your opponent takes a piece pinned to his king and checks you, he immediately loses.
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 lon ...[text shortened]... uncoordinated and no longer threats; the game is over. Cut off the head and the body will die.
When your king is in check it must get out of check. So, unless you plan to change more rules, we see how the current rule is consistent in the game currently, whereas your change is not.
Originally posted by PawnsRockDaHouseThe rules do make sense overall and arguing that they are beyond logic just degrades chess. Also, do you realize how bad a player would need to be to really blunder a king? This would hardly ever happen and no intelligent player would play just hoping for this mistake. Most people I play don't even say check and I have not once moved my king into a spot that is also check. (but I did almost do it many many times) Knight vs king would still be a draw, only THERE WOULD NO LONGER BE STALEMATES. This is because the stalemated player would have a legal move, they would be legally allowed to move into check, and thus, they would lose. I don't see this as such a bad thing, chess is a bit too drawish anyway. With my rule modifications it would probably reduce draws by about 60%.
Dude, the reasoning behind the rules is plain, obvious and easily identified 😉
They are there not because they make sense, but rather because it adds a whole lot of depth to the game. Think without the rule, a player can rush into attack without thought, simply because there is no chance of making a bad move forcing a draw. There is no way to ...[text shortened]... hat your bishop is attacking, but doesnt land on that square, the bishop can still take it.
My suggested modifications wouldn't make chess simpler, it would only make it harder. Players would have to be a little more careful and since draws are harder, brilliant combinations and moves would have to be found more often to survive. A good plan would become even more important because you cannot count on a draw when behind in material. As for me getting lucky and catching opponents in check and taking their king, again, you would have to be below 1000 to actually blunder like this. Thus, you can be sure I would beat any player that did that anyway. And in any case, aren't all blunders really me getting "lucky?"
There is no prescribed formula for winning. It is hoped that most wins come from deep tactical and positional plans, but every once in a while, a blunder happens. Winning this way is less rewarding, but it is in no way less important.
As for your final note, that was basically my point too. It makes players more aware and could have them consistently playing at a higer level. This also contradicts your previous point about how now chess would be less strategic because people would blunder their king. But here:
"So that rule change wouldnt accomplish anything other than making people take longer for their moves to see if they're in check." you are just wrong. This rule chage would eliminate stalemates and chess's drawish tendency. It would make players more aware of strategic devices and it will make it consistent with the spirit of competition among other things.
Originally posted by razor2007I've already explained this. An army without a leader is worthless and so once you take your opponents king, his pieces are not threatening you. Thus if he checks you but leaves himself in check, he will get his king taken and you will win. Of course this is an exception to the normal rules, but it makes perfect sense.
You can't say that though. You can't compare this to a checkmate because in a checkmate situation, or in any situation currently, both kings can't be in check.
When your king is in check it must get out of check. So, unless you plan to change more rules, we see how the current rule is consistent in the game currently, whereas your change is not.
I was going to comment on this thread at first since it's pretty ridiculous but since it's still going on so long, I thought I would mention something.
You obviously like playing chess and so does you opponent. Allowing his king to move into check and being captured would end the game faster.
Thus your chess game is over much quicker and you get less satisfaction.
BTW, what about castling through check? That's not allowed right now but with your idea how would it work? I know I wouldn't sac a piece to stop my king from castling and then he uses this crazy rule and castles through check. Unless if your saying, if he castles through check then it's game over if you call it. In that case the game is over faster, and see the point I made above.
BTW, if it's blitz and your king is in check and you don't notice and do somethign else the its game over if your opponent calls it.
Originally posted by RahimKIf I play an opponent that blunders the king away, the game probably would not have been that satisfying anyway. When I play chess, I play to win. If I can win faster, all the better. For example if I see a mate in 9 and mate in 2, you better believe I will go for the mate in 2.
I was going to comment on this thread at first since it's pretty ridiculous but since it's still going on so long, I thought I would mention something.
You obviously like playing chess and so does you opponent. Allowing his king to move into check and being captured would end the game faster.
Thus your chess game is over much quicker and you get less s ...[text shortened]... k and you don't notice and do somethign else the its game over if your opponent calls it.
As for the castling through check and your other points, they are covered earlier.
Originally posted by exigentskyI think your just trying to pick up some easy points.
If I play an opponent that blunders the king away, the game probably would not have been that satisfying anyway. When I play chess, I play to win. If I can win faster, all the better. For example if I see a mate in 9 and mate in 2, you better believe I will go for the mate in 2.
As for the castling through check and your other points, they are covered earlier.
Where did you get this idea from anyway? Had a dream about it?
Ya, i read the other stuff but just wanted to mention the castling thing again. Repetition is good.
Originally posted by exigentskyYou talk Nonsense! There would not be a draw with a king & knight versus king. You would be able to corner him and he would end up having to move into check. In fact probably the only way you would end up with a draw would be king versus king. The idea of the game is to "checkmate the opponent's king" not to "take it" like you would any other piece. Webster's dictionary defines checkmate as "a move or position that places the opponent's king inescapably in check". If someone blunders and accidentaly moves into check the situation would not meet this criteria. In fact if the oppnent's king is in a stalemate position it does not meet this criteria since once he would move into check he would actually have at least one square (the one he came from) and possibly more that he could move to where he would not be in check. You would do this to reduce the number of draws, however it has been stated before that chess is an intelecual game and in that spirit there needs to be a clear winner who showed that he or she was clearly superior by putting the opponent's king into checkmate according to the definition.
The rules do make sense overall and arguing that they are beyond logic just degrades chess. Also, do you realize how bad a player would need to be to really blunder a king? This would hardly ever happen and no intelligent player would play just hoping for this mistake. Most people I play don't even say check and I have not once moved my king into a spot t ...[text shortened]... ices and it will make it consistent with the spirit of competition among other things.
For christ's sake give it up! Your idea stinks! I can't believe that this thread continues to carry on plainly due to your stubborness. As I said before go ahead create your own game and find somebody else that wants to play it with you but do not call it chess.
GV
Im sorry man, that was a nice attempt at logic, but no, anybody could see that taking away the chance of draw does not enhance the game. Your saying less draws make it harder to win? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Draws are there for a reason, to give the player who is almost hopelessly lost a chance to not lose. Taking that away is not a good thing.
Taking away draws puts so much more importance on the opening and so much less on the endgame... not a good thing seeing as how the endgame is where the player is actually playing, not just repeating a variation he studied.
And about your point that only an idiot would move into check or not see it, then why do you care? Either way, with or without the rule, you will win the damn game.
And I can't believe your point about the quickness thing. I would much rather take nine moves involving sweet sacrifices and weird combinations than just move twice. But I guess I play for fun and you play to win, so there's a difference.
Originally posted by Nighthawk62Yes, checkmate != capturing the king, but think beyond that. Why do you checkmate your opponent, why is it the goal of the game? It is so because once checkmated, capturing the king would inevitably follow and without the king, your opponent's forces are useless.
You talk Nonsense! There would not be a draw with a king & knight versus king. You would be able to corner him and he would end up having to move into check. In fact probably the only way you would end up with a draw would be king versus king. The idea of the game is to "checkmate the opponent's king" not to "take it" like you would any other piece. Webs ...[text shortened]... d find somebody else that wants to play it with you but do not call it chess.
GV
As for the knight plus king vs king not being a draw, you may be right. I didn't analyze it, but it seems difficult to take away every square for the king if played right.
And yes, if I ever do play a chess variant based on my idea, I won't call it chess. Don't worry. I'll call it Chess Improved.
Originally posted by PawnsRockDaHouseI never said fewer draws make it harder to win, I'm not sure where you get this. I also don't think draws should be eliminated, only reduced.
Im sorry man, that was a nice attempt at logic, but no, anybody could see that taking away the chance of draw does not enhance the game. Your saying less draws make it harder to win? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Draws are there for a reason, to give the player who is almost hopelessly lost a chance to not lose. Taking that away is n ...[text shortened]... n just move twice. But I guess I play for fun and you play to win, so there's a difference.
Allowing moving into check does more than punish "idiots", thus saving time. It reduces the draws in chess. I think this is a good thing.
I play for fun also, but I play to win as well. A lot of the fun comes from winning. Also, for me, the best way to win is the most efficient way to do it. I think Fritz will agree with that too. 😉