18642 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Why do we try so hard to capture the opponent's king, but are never allowed to capture it once we get in proper position? It makes me so mad sometimes that I have to announce check or checkmate. Especially after thinking and playing so hard. I just want to capture that piece. Just once. Has anyone ever captured the king? Is there something I'm missing here?
It would be an act of lèse-majesté to kill the king is the historical reason. Old traditions are very hard to change in chess.
It's not against the rules. I usually just capture the king in competitive play for fun xP
As for online/live/960 I'm not sure why you can't.
To capture the king your opponent would need to make an illegal move or you'd have to make two moves in a row.
IT IS DIFICULT =IF YOU TRY- THE GAME COULD LAST FOREVER
The old blitz rules were that if the opponent left his King in check or moved it into check, you captured it and won the game.
Of course they had to change that rule, it was too simple, so now you have to notify a arbiter in writing, fill out some forms in triplicate, and submit to a urine test to claim the win. But the chess bureaucrats are MUCH happier about it.
Because if Elvis lives, no one knows where he is...
Where can I find an arbiter?
Why is checkmate not enough? I mean, once that occurs, everyone knows the game is over, so making one more pointless move is, well, pointless.
Are you people kidding me?
You can't capture the king because of the following other rules of chess:1. When a king is in check, the only legal moves for that side are moves that result in the King not being in check anymore2. No player can move twice in a row.When you put your opponent in checkmate, it's his move next, but he can't move, that's why it's checkmate.You're saying you move twice in a row to capture his king? Why? The game is already over because your opponent is checkmated. There's no need to 'capture' his king, and break a fundamental rule of any game by moving twice in a row. You're just wasting effort and making yourself look stupid.
The only other way to capture the king, without making two moves in a row, is if the opponent makes an illegal move. But by definition, legal moves are not allowed. In Blitz, yes, sometimes a rule is made that the king can be captured in case the opponent moves into check, but then moving into check is no longer an illegal move (instead, it's just a very stupid move), and that's a different game than chess.
That's not why we don't capture the king.
Hey man... you just revived a 1 1/2 year old thread...
You're wrong; it is against the rules of normal chess. If you were allowed to capture the king in competitive play, then you were not playing normal chess.
There is a great story about Bejamin Franklin playing some aristocrat in Europe and after he had her checkmated he captured her king. She said "we don't capture kings" and his response was "in America we do!"
Then Ben Franklin moved twice in a row, or the aristocrat moved into check. Either way, Ben Franklin was acting like a childish idiot on that particular occasion, if he even really said that.
Yeah I know... it's about time. Sorry, didn't notice it until now.
Even in Blitz, you are not allowed to capture the King (under FIDE rules). You can, however, claim an immediate win if the opponent has left his King in check during a Blitz game.
FIDE Rule B.3.c (applies only to Blitz games) : An illegal move is completed once the opponent’s clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move.
Does that apply to chess.com? I want to find out.
No, there's no reason for a computer-based chess game to allow King captures.
The only reason it's sometimes done in over-the-board blitz tournaments it's because since blitz is so fast-paced, it's easier to make certain moves quasi-legal than it is having to sort out the mess when someone makes an illegal move. In a computer version, it simply doesn't allow you to make illegal moves. There's no easy way to do that in a real life over-the-board situation.
Woah! I completely forgot about this thread. Got some great answers, but I still want to capture a King. If only just once...
Next question. Why are we allowed to capture the Queen? Is this a sexist game?
You can't capture the king for the same reason why you can't marry your sister.
"2015 European Individual Championship Round 9 Hosts GM Alon Greenfeld and GM Alik Gershon"
A devastating opening for white.
by JohnRooney a few minutes ago
by GnrfFrtzl a few minutes ago
3/5/2015 - E.Stoddard vs S.Sorenson, corr., 1977
by GiantZ10 3 minutes ago
by Reb 5 minutes ago
If you could change one rule of chess,what would it be?
by GnrfFrtzl 7 minutes ago
Long time coming
by Conflagration_Planet 10 minutes ago
Query: players that employ cheap tactics
by Reb 17 minutes ago
what problem with live chess !?
by HAEDR_3 26 minutes ago
KingsCrusher VS ChessNetwork
by RolandoChris 31 minutes ago
Just A thought
by morph101 31 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!