Stalemate

First, it is not so much whether or not a movie is pirated, but rather whether or not a movie is compatible to a person's culture. I'm not much into foreign films because their style is usually a bit of a mismatch to my cultural views. I don't expect everybody to watch the movies made in my country.

Second, of your list I've only seen "Saving Private Ryan". You didn't include movies I appreciated like "Patton", "Apocalypse Now", "Good Morning Vietnam", "M*A*S*H", "Valkyrie", "Pearl Harbor", "Hacksaw Ridge", "Midway", etc. To say nothing of the unforgettable "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter".

No, you cannot simply take the king. Touch move, however, does apply and often results in a player being forced to either: block the check with the piece they touched even though that piece will not be defended and the check will be immediately renewed; or to capture the checking piece with a more valuable piece even though the checking piece is defended. Also, generally two minutes are added to the opponent's clock and if you make too many illegal moves it is an immediate loss of game (in blitz, depending on the rule set, as little as one illegal move loses whether it is leaving the king in check, moving the knight on a diagonal, playing Bb2xh7 instead of Bc2xh7, castling after the king already moved, or any other illegal move).

Ahem.

You talk too much without saying anything.

Why can't you take the King?

I don't know.

You cannot take the king because it is an illegal move to leave your king in check and when an illegal move is made the rules (since you have a US flag, both FIDE and US Chess rules) require the position to be reinstated to the last legal point and the game to be continued from there with touch move active. In general the opponent of the person making the illegal move gets two minutes added to the clock. If it is a FIDE game then two illegal moves (any illegality, not just leaving the king in check) is a loss of game but there is US Chess each is a two-minute time adjustment. In Blitz tournaments often a single illegal move triggers an immediate loss of game.

Please be aware that an illegal move is not illegal until the clock has been hit and the other player's time started. Until that point, even if a player released the piece, an illegal move can still be corrected - while still adhering to the touch move rules.

Ok. I understand.

You are not explaining anything, stupid.

Why is it illegal to move or leave your King in check?

Why was that rule made?

All games need rules. You may as well ask why Yahtzee uses five dice, Monopoly uses a gameboard, Bridge uses a 52-card deck, etc. The rule was made because it was deemed very sensible to make it.

Here is the FIDE rule (I realize I mistyped - three illegal moves lose in FIDE)

7.4 a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the
requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has
been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be
reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined
the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity.
The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.13. The Articles 4.3 and 4.6 apply
to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.
b. After the action taken under Article 7.4.a, for the first two illegal moves by a player
the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent in each instance; for a
third illegal move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this
player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot
checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

Incessantly asking why even after receiving an answer is not doing your own thinking.

The rule about announcing check is only a coffeehouse rule, not a standard rule. Any tournament player since the use of chess clocks would find that rule annoyingly idiotic and a distraction to the other players in a tournament (particularly if there are fairly new players that do not know mating patterns and are playing moves and saying check every three seconds).

The old rule expected people playing chess to actually know how to play chess and thus follow the rules of the game. In American football if a team commits a penalty then the ball is respotted with yardage consequences and the game resumes. In chess if you commit an illegal move then the position is reinstated with a time penalty. Once clocks started being used that was a simple penalty to apply and more effective than merely shaming somebody for being foolish enough to make an illegal move.

However, I get the feeling you might never understand any answer to your question.

Depending on which origin story of chess you follow, when chess was first created there were also dice involved regarding which pieces could be moved. The elimination of dice changed it from a game of chance to a game of pure strategy. That wasn't the only change, so I'm surprised you aren't asking why bishops were made stronger by no longer being limited to moving two squares at a time, why queens were allowed to move an unlimited number of open diagonal squares instead of just one square diagonally, why pawns were allowed to move two squares on their first move instead of only one all the time, why castling was codified to always have the king moving two squares versus "Italian castling", etc. I have answers to those as well (that may or may not match the internal thought processes of the people that made the changes) but seeing as you wouldn't accept any answer I'll let you figure it out yourself.

By the way, do you realize that you are asking what the internal thought processes were of people who died centuries ago? And then insulting anybody who doesn't happen to have a crystal ball to see those internal processes, and prove it to your satisfaction?

I play both Western Chess and Chinese chess.

In Chinese chess, the "Bishop" moves 2 squares diagonally. The "Queen" moves 1 square diagonally.

Etc . . . etc.

That IS what we are asking ourselves.

Googling an "answer" is not the answer, stupid.

What IS the thought process of the people who invented the rule that

You cannot leave your King in check.

That is what we ware asking ourselves!

@jetoba

You never answer why

Why?

What is the reasoning for the rule

You can't leave your King in check.

Any why

you have to announce "check".

Yes. You do.

The spirit of the rule still applies even if you don't announce "check".

I gave you my answer and my reasons. You simply refuse to accept it.

You are demanding proof of what long-dead people were thinking at the time. You are saying that whatever they were thinking was incorrect and are also denying the validity of any current thoughts that disagree with you, which is the equivalent of saying "what I know has to be right and you have to prove it". Well, I do not think you are right and have no interest in proving something that I think is wrong.

[Abusive statement removed; DS]

You just said the 'is".

That "is" the rule.

[Abusive statement removed; DS]

How can we get "proof"?

Invent a time machine, go back in time and ask them?

I want you to guess, imagine, why they made up the new rule that you have to say "check", and cannot leave the King in check.

That was already answered and you ignored it. The "new rule" about having to say check was a rule only for the non-serious coffeehouse players and no more of a rule than the common "house rule" in Monopoly of putting Chance/Community Chest/Luxury tax/Income tax fines into free parking and giving that money to the first person to land there, or allowing building a hotel without having to first build four houses per hotel space (either on or before the turn the hotels are built) and ignoring that the game was designed with a housing shortage strategy available. Such "rules" are not standard rules and your asking why the rule was changed is irrelevant because the rule was not changed other than by people playing their own casual non-standard versions of the game. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat that.

The rule about not leaving the king in check was always there (at least after the dice were taken out of the equation), though there were non-standard rules about being able to capture a king that was left in check. Those were, however, non-standard rules. That said, the number of illegal moves that trigger a loss of game has changed over the years and capturing a king in check is one of the ways to show that an illegal move was made. However it is not because the king is in check and an illegal move loss trigger can also be done for moving a knight diagonally, jumping a bishop over a piece, hitting the clock without making a move, leaving a pawn on the promotion square and not replacing it with a piece before hitting the clock, etc. Those have virtually nothing to do with the king being in check an everything to do with being an illegal move (leaving the king in check is an illegal move, not an invitation to capture it).

Once you get past the ideas that: <A> having to say "check" was and official rule and <B> not being able to leave the king in check was not always an official rule (once chance was removed from determining which pieces can move), then we may get past this incessant harping on irrelevancies.

@jetoba

Think for a moment.

When chess was invented thousands of years ago.

What is the rule?

Is the rule a King cannot move into check?

Or is the rule the King can move into check? (i.e. no rule besides how the pieces move).