Checkmate is dumb

I suggest creating exploding pieces for those who crave the thrill of the kill.  It would keep the chess set companies busy.

checkmate isn't dumb

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".

Very compelling argument. I'm convinced.

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