CUTE
DENVER
Rule Changes That'll Never Happen, Part 3: Capturing the King
Sort:
Forum Legend
Following
New Comments
Locked Topic
Pinned Topic
Let me start by saying this is the first article I've submitted to chess.com in close to six years. I mention this because some chess.com members have asked me why new compositions stopped appearing. In particular, a few of them wanted to know why there is a "Chess Fantasies I" but no "Chess Fantasies II". I mean, if there is a part one for something, shouldn't there be a part two, at least? OK, I'll admit you have me there, and I'll tell you why part two never came out. As I was writing the article intended to be part two of the Chess Fantasies series, it occurred to me that it wasn't turning out well. The story wasn't flowing the way I wanted, and it just sounded weird. Now, I understand that, as chessplayers, a lot of you like weird stuff, but this wasn't an interesting weird, more of a goofy weird. No doubt all artists have occasional misfires like this, moments when they are forced to confront their own mortality and admit that something they just created is a piece of crap. I'm sure even John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote a few songs where they said, "This stinks. Let's not record it." That's how the artistic process goes, I suppose. For every good idea you come up with, except to have one or two turkeys.
Maybe someday I'll go back to Chess Fantasies II and finally figure out a way to make it work, or maybe I'll come up with a different idea that would make a good Chess Fantasies II. (No promises, though.) Recently I did get the urge to get back into writing, however, so here is a part three for my "Rule Changes That'll Never Happen" series. And with this lengthy introduction now complete, let's begin...
* * * * * * *
The game of chess has a simple objective, that being to capture the opposing king, except the rules don't say it that way. Instead we say, "Attain a position where your opponent can't make any move that prevents the capture of his king on your next move, with the additional stipulation that the king must be under attack, i.e. not 'stalemated'". Dang, if you thought the introduction to this article got a little wordy, what the heck is that! Instead of saying "capture the king," the rule is loaded with the type of jargon we're supposed to be reading before we take out a loan. (Yes, this happens often in our modern legalistic society: in trying to define a concept more precisely, we only succeed in taking it more confusing.) In fact, I'll bet every guy who teaches chess to students does what I do - to avoid confusing our kids with all that messy mumbo jumbo, we tell them the goal is to kill the king.
Ah, but the obfuscation does not end there! (Oops, did I just use the word "obfuscation"? That's so obfuscating!) If we're going to state the objective of chess in such a complicated way, it only makes sense to have a more complicated definition of what constitutes an illegal move. So let's talk about that, i.e. what is considered to be an illegal move in chess:
There is no dispute about a certain class of illegal moves, those being the situations where a player tries to move a piece to a square not defined by the way the piece moves. For example, if we have a bishop on b1, we can't move it to h8. Bishops have to move along diagonals, we say. That much is easy, understandable even to a five-year-old. Except, then we get to the concept of moving into check. So, we say that a bishop can move from b1 to c2, but not if the move exposes the king to check. OK, I suppose we can think of this as an illegal move as well, but you have to admit it feels different. The bishop moved along a diagonal, just like bishops are supposed to, but the move happens to allow RxK. Anyway, what's the big deal with king captures? When I see kindergartners play chess, sometimes I'll see a player capture his opponent's king, at which point he'll wave the king in the air and say "I got your king!" Then a new game will start. The matches seem to flow just fine when king captures are allowed, at least when kindergartners are playing.
Now, some of you are probably thinking the rule against king captures came about because we adults have higher esthetic standards. We can't have a game end with a random king capture, because that would be an ugly finish. As it turns out, though, king captures aren't forbidden because of esthetics. I learned the real reason while rummaging through some 500-year-old family records sitting in a box in my grandfather's attic. So, while this may be divulging a 500-year-old family secret, I guess it's time to let the cat out of the bag. This is the story - the real reason why you can't just take your opponent's king when he leaves it en prise:
Those of you who have read part 2 of my series on "Rule Changes That'll Never Happen" will recall a certain King Richard the Corpulent, a 15th century monarch who had a great influence on the evolution of chess rules. In his day, King Richard was renowned for never losing a chess game. Well, it wasn't that the king was an exceptional player, but it seemed like every time a member of his cabinet had him in trouble, his opponent overlooked a crusher that surely would have won the game.
Now, within the kingdom lived one of my ancient relatives, known to the other villagers as Poor Bob. Since all the members of his cabinet happened to have business elsewhere that day, King Richard somewhat inexplicably accepted a challenge from Poor Bob. So, a game of chess was played between the king and this commoner. As described in the family records, during the game Poor Bob tried an ambitious but speculative attack against the king, and for a while King Richard defended his position well. However, then the king captured a piece with his bishop, forgetting that the bishop was pinned against the king. Jubilant by the sudden turn of events, Poor Bob snapped off the king emphatically, held the piece over his head, and shouted, "Yessss, I have his king! King Richard hath gone down in defeat!" The crowd in the village green watched this in stunned silence.
King Richard did not take kindly to Poor Bob's antics. He responded, "Not true, peasant. You must advise your opponent when he moves into check." He then called for the Royal Executioner, and Poor Bob was dragged to the chopping block and beheaded. Shortly after that, the rules of chess were amended to forbid king captures - games can only be won by attaining a position where a presumed capture of the king occurs on the following move.
So now you know. Stop reading too much into the illegality of moving into check. It's just a dumb rule with no real foundation, and my family is to blame.