JamieDelarosa escreveu:
I suggest creating exploding pieces for those who crave the thrill of the kill. It would keep the chess set companies busy.
Real life atomic chess when?
Checkmate is dumb
Sort:
?
HackPrincess wrote:
checkmate isn't dumb
Very compelling argument. I'm convinced.
Feb 4, 2021
0
#65
unisource wrote:
So, what's the deal with checkmate? Imagine how much better the game of chess would be if instead of winning by checkmate, you win by killing the king. Oh, but that's what checkmate is you say? No, its not. Who here has actually killed the king in a game of chess? Nobody. I play this arduous game of tedium that lasts hours and requires intense focus and concentration, and when I'm finally on the verge of killing that smug aristrocrat, and redeeming all the time I've poured into the game, it ends with the king on the verge of immenent death, but the inevitable act is never played out. It's like he's silently mocking me after I've systematically decimated his entire kingdom, but he gets to live? We've all been robbed of what is rightfully ours. This would be like a marathon runner on the verge of winning the gruling 26.2 mile race, only to find that he doesn't actually get to cross the finish line through the tape. Nope, the race stops right before he gets there and he just has to imagine crossing the finish line. What kind of a runner would put up with this kind of nonsense? I therefore propose that the rules of chess be changed to the simple and incredibly satisfying "kill the enemy king".
I've played in multiple King Capture tournaments, yeah we get to "kill the enemy king" lol
euchrestud wrote:
HackPrincess wrote:
checkmate isn't dumb
Very compelling argument. I'm convinced.
I'm convincing, aren't I
True
lol
EscherehcsE wrote:
Although it *was* fun to see some old Andy Clifton posts... ;-)
yes.
unfortunate for all of us that he has decided to stay away.
Well, technically, a checkmate is the equivalent of having trapped the king until inevitable death. So yes, the game is played the way you describe it. The only small change that would be done if those were the rules is that when you check the king and the opponent does not see the attack and moves a different piece, you would be allowed to kill his king in the next move instead of awkwardly interrupt him because the move is ilegal. But to be honest, if you are playing against someone who is not able to see a simple check, then he is probably a terrible player and the game would be very, very boring.
13 days ago
0
#71
eddysallin wrote:
N2UHC wrote:
The way I see it is that checkmate itself is the finish line. Putting the king into check where he doesn't have any legal moves is enough of a win for me.
Putting the king into check where he doesn't have any legal moves....that is the definition of "checkmate".
well that is what he was saying
I suggest creating exploding pieces for those who crave the thrill of the kill. It would keep the chess set companies busy.