Another way to draw?

I was playing chess with my friend one school day. I checkmated my schoolmate one move before he could.

Then a thought came to me:

What if one player was in checkmate and that player managed to check the king afterwards? Then the other player would have to decide between capturing his opponent's king, allowing his opponent to capture his, ending as a draw, or to continue the game and try to win without exceptions.

Do you think that's a good rule to add to the chess books?

wow dont know the answer but good question

No.  Sorry.  I don't think chess needs any modification to the rules.  To me it's just fine the way it is.

If a player checkmated, that's it... the game is over.  It then becomes irrelevant that he/she might be a move away from mating the other king.

Taken from the basis of practical real-life battles, even if the king dies, it is assumed that the other pieces would still have enough common sense to chase after the enemy king by themselves without their king's guidance. Being one move late is too marginal to be considered a loss, in my opinion. When one is checkmated, the king does not die yet, so he should have one last chance at a draw one move after he does die.

Just how I see this situation. Feel free to dispell.

wise

The idea of chess is that the game is over when your king is captured. So if you were in check, and put your opponent in check, then he took your king, game over, the end.

VULPES_VULPES wrote:

The problem with chess is that it has multiple dimensions.

You could say that white moves first, then black moves, then white, etc. Or can say that both white and black moves at the same time (hence white move-black move = one move). If the latter is the case, then your statement is null. If not, then I guess you're right (unless you want to read post #4 again).

White moves then black, it's not simotaneus, otherwise you'd have simotaneous moves.

That would really be messy.

Which is why chess is turn based

Don't stick you tongue out at me, boy! (LOL) 

I used to play with my friends like this and it makes it really hard to win.

Not true. The Mongols were conquoring the entire Eurasian continent. Not even Rome stood in their path. When Ginghus Khan died, the entire Mongolian army packed up and went home. (forgive me if my history is not entirely accurate).

In the days of old, Kings were considered Gods. The loss of a God was a travesty.

Entire nations have vanished from the pages of history as their were no longer heirs to the throne.

In medieval times, when the general was slain, it was common for the armies to route (flee) in sheer panic while being chased down and butchered by the victors.

Chess is so ancient that Romans gave credit to its creation to a goddess named Caissa. And this predates the Mongolian incursion and predates the Medieval scenario by hundreds of years.

Remember the tales of Arthur; that the King and the Land were one. When the King was ill, or was not right with god,  the crops did not flourish. When King Arthur was healthy and pure, the land flourished.

By today's standards, this mindset is inconceivable. Chess was created in times we annotate as BC.

The mindset of ancient peoples, and the connection they felt with their monarchs and generals are mindsets that are inconceivable to us today. Monarchs and generals sat next to the deities the people worshipped.

No, I do not think this would be a good rule. I think the rules of chess are just fine as they are.

Chess is a game, it doesn't and shouldn't mimic real life. In fact, if it did, we'd have to remove Bishop and Queens, because when is the last time they fought in battle? (Ok maybe the Queen in some cultures). The Rooks would also not be able to move, being, well, buildings. (Yes, I know a real Rook is a chariot, but they look like castles in modern chess.)

lol

Only if one move managed to checkmate both kings (not possible) would there be a draw.   In chess, like life, timing is everything. 

agreed