Checkmate is dumb
Sort:
But that’s how World War 2 ended...You know, when the entire empire surrenders and the war is officially over. Or did they just keep going until everyone is extinct? Checkmate makes the game fun and captivating. Could you imagine playing a game of chess that requires you to capture everything even if it takes 500 moves...
When the other player has no more legal moves the enemy king is already “killed”. That’s the definition of a checkmate. It’s all about delivering mate.
I completely aggree
Feb 3, 2021
0
#46
Jeeze... you found a thread that contains one of my posts from EIGHT YEARS ago.
That's older than some of our members.
If king is on checkmate, the next move for the king would be pointless because we already know the king will be captured on last move.
If the king is already checkmated then he can not move, therefore you cannot play further into the the game and "kill" the king.
Game would be interesting if you can “checkmate” the opponent’s queen and hold her hostage, in exchange for more pieces...
Feb 3, 2021
0
#50
While I don't think the checkmate rule is dumb, I do think it would be interesting to allow the king to move into check so that there would be no such thing as stalemate, and game has to end with a king capture. But I am a purist at heart, so the existing rules are good for me haha
Dude there is no point in finish capuring the king. I have always thinked about check as an attack attemp where the king gets to flee while the checkmate as an attack that finally hits whitout the need of touching him.
The only thing about taking the king to win is to annoy beginners that don't know when they are in check.
Also don't necropost 
Feb 3, 2021
0
#54
Bad idea. All the EGTBs would have to be reworked and they'd need more disc space.
It's less about the audible announcement of "check" and rather the underlying fact that it's a rule at all. Honestly past maybe the 1500 mark the rule of "check", checkmate vs. capturing the king, etc are all moot points anyway as players of that caliber are going to notice when their king is under direct attack and are going to resign before it's taken. But we shouldn't ignore our 800 ELO brothers out there, and for them it is a meaningful and bad rule.
Imagine a 10/0 game between some 800 players. White plays reasonable moves (for an 800) at a reasonable pace. Black plays slightly better moves - mostly he's just hyper careful about not hanging anything - but uses just way too much time with every move.
The end game gets here and Black is up a little material but is now scrambling due to his clock. He has 11 seconds left and he tries to move a pawn. The computer doesn't let him. Eight seconds. He thinks he missed the square and tries again. Six seconds. The pawn won't move. He doesn't understand and tries to move his bishop - three seconds. It goes back. He throws his arms up in frustration and the game ends in a draw by insufficient material. He stares at the board for another 10 seconds and realizes "omg lol that knight is attacking my king that's why I couldn't move anything."
That guy gets a draw even though he tried to make two different moves that hang his king? White played solid, managed the clock better, and created an attack on the king his opponent wasn't able to cope with. White deserves to win that game.
Feb 3, 2021
0
#56
SerbianChessStarr escreveu:
At my level of play (which isn't that high) most games never reach checkmate. Because of the skill level once someone notices they have a decisive disadvantage they resign. At the highest levels this is also true. So what would the point of changing the rule be? Most games never reach checkmate anyways except between low level players.
It might be the minority of games, but that doesn't mean they are nearly rare enough to not be impactful.
I KNOW! it feels like such a waste when you don’t get that satisfaction.
checkmate isn't dumb
Bruh he did not just-
This "killing the king" proposal is kinda dumb