Originally posted by techsouthWell said! You have explained it perfectly and it seems much better than I was able to do myself. I somehow feel however that Mr. Exigentsky will not even read your post carefully and give it some consideration as he will babble on about how "war is war" and how he should just be allowed to "take" the oponent's king rather that checkmating it.
I agree that it is fair to put rules up for debate. Ultimately chess is a game, and is only worthwhile if it is enjoyable. Quite different from war which is never enjoyed by decent people. Personally, I think the rule not allowing one to move into check makes the game of chess better and more enjoyable.
Furthermore, if such a rule change were to take p ...[text shortened]... hess allows the capture of a king. That's true, but stalemates are still draws in blitz.
GV
Originally posted by techsouthSome very good points. Perhaps the biggest danger is unbalancing the game. Would chess still be a theoretical draw as Kasparov confidently claimed, in the absence of stalemates?
I agree that it is fair to put rules up for debate. Ultimately chess is a game, and is only worthwhile if it is enjoyable. Quite different from war which is never enjoyed by decent people. Personally, I think the rule not allowing one to move into check makes the game of chess better and more enjoyable.
Furthermore, if such a rule change were to take p ...[text shortened]... hess allows the capture of a king. That's true, but stalemates are still draws in blitz.
BUMP
The latest issue of Chess Life has a great editorial on exactly this subject. A prominent chess promoter and innovator suggests that chess adopt a "last move wins" rule. This makes the game simpler to learn (bsence of weird exceptions like stalemate), more logical (for reasons already discussed) and obviously less drawish. If the last move wins, there can be no stalemater, it's just a win. Checkmate works the same way because there would be no legal moves to get out of check. This is similar to Checkers where the last move wins rule is in effect. I would like to see such an idea tested for chess. What are everyone's thoughts on this?
I think chess has been so popular as a game since it has good balance of factors. I think the proposed rule change would probably upset this balance. For example, although there may be less draws, maybe many wins in the endgame would become easier and the game would lose some of its challenge for both sides playing such positions. Some random examples...
3k4/8/8/8/8/8/3P4/3K4
Much easier win for White.
3k4/8/8/8/8/8/P7/K7
Becomes a win for White
K1k5/P7/8/8/8/8/8/8
Win for Black?! 🙂
2k5/8/8/8/8/8/8/2NNK3
Win for White.
Edit: when using the "fen" tags, is it one FEN per post? If not, I'm overlooking something else 🙁
This seems comical to me. If you could move into check legally but the result on your opponents move was capturing your king, in effect checkmate, then wouldn't your move essentially be resignation? If you castled through check, wouldn't you be resigning? I don't see this as an improvement to the game, but it does not detract either, it seems the only 'benefit' is you can get lucky if your opponent accidentally moves into check. Whats the point?
For those interested in a rule change decreasing draws without changing the logic of the game see:
http://chess.computerwebservices.net/capture.php
Essentially, if the king can reach the opposing king's home square safely, that side wins. Every other rule as in standard chess.
Regarding the king being captured - I am dissapointed that most people cannot see how stupid this is.
Think of it this way: you are in a war (chess is a game of war). How incompetant do you have to be to allow your leader to be killed? IN chess, you have to protect your king at all costs - and if you have no other move available - then you don't move at all ! That is stalemate - a draw . This too is logical because you have essentially committed suicide or perhaps it represents a fortified standstill ...
The point is if you allow your king to be captured then you are too incompetant a player to be playing chess!
Chess thus represents a war between two competant parties who are trying to kill each other's king.
To allow the king to be captured is playing another game (a mighty stupid one) for idiots who cannot comprehend chess at all. You can call this chess variant: idiot chess ..