Checkmate is dumb

Checkmating the opponent: GOOD

Having opponent resign: GOOD

Being one move from checkmate and having your idiot opponent let the clock run out: BAD

There are worse things than not getting to pick up your opponent's king and take him off the board.

This thread is either dumb or hilarious.

And yet I find it somehow strangely beautiful.

So I guess you'd be in favor of letting the home team bat in the bottom of the 9th when it has the lead. Wouldn't want to deprive them of piling on and increasing their margin of victory! And for the team that has the last shot in a hockey shootout when they already have the lead? Let them shoot again, anyway! They could win by 2! And a team scoring a touchdown in overtime? let them- no, MAKE them- kick the extra point! Extra points should come after touchdowns, ALWAYS!

(Before posting this, I had to double-check that the OP was American and thus, stood a reasonable chance of getting all these sports analogies. Which he is. Of course.)

I have a better idea why not kill your opponent? If you beat him at chess you are obviously superior to him and thus you should be allowed to kill him.

How many of us have faced the Tipitover variation?

That's my favorite.

Well, that and the Tosser.

Right.  Why is that not enough of a win?  Why does the OP think that it's not a satisfying win unless you can actually capture the king?

Having your opponent resign one move from checkmate:  Frustrating.  There's something kind of unsatisfactory about playing a good game, getting your opponent into a jam, then not getting the satisfaction of making the winning move.

lol

Nobody will ever see this but I'm with the OP. Check and checkmate are silly.

If the object of the game were a more straight-forward "capture the king" (as opposed to arrive at a situation where the capture of the king is inevitable on the subsequent move) we could do away with the real enemy - check. What is "check", really? It's just an announcement that I am threatening to win the game and a requirement for you to choose from an abbreviated list of moves that is in your best interest to choose from, anyway. Lol wut. What a dumb rule. Should we also announce check when we threaten a queen? Any major piece? Should I be forced to point out my potential forks or warn my opponent I'm thinking about sacrificing my B pawn? Of course not. Part of the game is making sound moves and forcing advantage out of the position, but part of the game is punishing your opponent for not seeing all the threats, as well. Announcing check *should be* the training wheels version of chess - a courtesy you give to a six year old still learning how the knight moves. But no. It persists through all the ranks, stealing many a gritty win from an 1100 player who mounts an attack on the enemy king, only to be betrayed by the computer for not allowing their opponent to complete the losing move they tried to make.

I guess you just want violance in chess by "killing" pieces. 

You play gun games right?

like fortnite (that I don't play)

Euchrestud, you are wrong. No serious player anounces check over the board. And if the opponent doesn't notice and makes a move that don't gets the king out of the check, it's an illegal move. No need of a computer to not allowing it.

Hey, no fair with the necro trolling, lol...

I see. My bad.

Although it *was* fun to see some old Andy Clifton posts... ;-)

hi

euchrestud i agree with you