If the king is so important, why did they only make him move one square any direction?

of course, I realize that. But that's still not mate. So black plays Kh1, then what does white do? Be specific and give me an actual line leading to mate. It doesn't even have to be a forced line, lol. You won't even find a helpmate here.

Uh...no you can't. Not when the kings have the ability to move queens. I think you forgot to read what this whole thread is about... We are not talking about chess. We are talking about an imaginary game, similar to chess, but where the kings have the ability to move any number of squares.

Yeah, the king would run loose all over the board, lol

just joking btw

I wouldn't say he was so important he can't be used. The king should be protected at all times, SOP against a really good player.  However, I'm finding against standard online opponents that having an active king is quite handy, he's like an extra piece because they don't use theirs.  I often find my position as black quickly disturbed if I castle and I don't like it, so I've been employing the tactic of not castling and getting favourable results.  As long as he is protected at all times it works fine, when the end game kicks in my king is in a position to jump into the battle where he is needed.  Nothing worse than castling kingside only to find out 40 moves later your king is needed queenside and you can't get him there quick enough.

Good point.

And how would these positions come about?

In relation to the "least material" mate thing that rooperi and a couple others were involved in, how about this?

Oh and it is possible to checkmate with a king and 2 pawns against a lone king on an open board........if your opponent is ignorant enough to walk into the corner of the board.

We're talking about if the King moved like a Queen.

If a king moved like a queen, he could leave the toilet seat up, hog the remote, leave his socks on the floor any time he felt like it, and spend all day sunday watching football....but alas he cannot.

Perceived authority with no actual power....one of the many life lessons the game can teach.

Yea, did you not read the thread at all? This whole discussion is about the king having powers of the queen, so your scenarios don't apply.

So that the game could end!

And since when is the king a great fighter? The queen, though, doesn't make any sense being that strong because the queen doesn't fight either.

The king once had thoughts of great forays into the countryside. Alas, he is remembering his days as a knight perhaps. At his age, he's lucky if he can waddle up to the great dinner table in the great hall. He's put on so much weight that moving even one square seems arduous. Indeed, it's why you see him on occasions refuse to castle, as moving the extra distance involved takes nearly all the breath out of him. Perhaps one day, he'll not move at all, and simply get trapped in the middle of the board.

because important doesn't mean powerful

if the pawn is so UNimportant, why did they give it such an ostentatious name?

Originally the queen did not have so much power. She could only move two squares. The stronger queen was a chess variant introduced along about the 15th or 16th century to speed up the game. At first this was known as "mad queen" chess to distinguish it from traditional chess. Then "mad queen" chess was so popular and successful that it became the norm. In old chess, the rooks and knights were the strong pieces (bishops could also only move two squares). In that environment, the king was more important as a fighting piece.