moving the king into check

what do people think about the rule that you can't move your king into check? i personally think it's kind of strange since you're allowed to blunder all through the game and lose, but you can't blunder your king away? just curious as to what others think.

in my opinion, if you're dumb enough (drunk enough, tired enough, or whatever) to move your king into check, maybe you deserve to lose the game. what do you think?

What you are suggesting is the way blitz chess is played, just not real chess.  It is one of the reasons I don't like to play blitz.  If a person can't figure out how to force mate, they shouldn't win.  The forcing totally against the opponent's will is what makes it chess.  Not some childish gotcha.  That's also why a draw by stalemate makes sense.  Chess is a puzzle to figure out.

Chess doesn't end with the actual capture of the king.  The rules would have to be changed so that the king must be actually captured.  This changes checkmate from the end of the game to the signal that you might as well resign one move early. 

Also, this would make the game a different game at the lower levels of play, since the highest rated players would almost never lose like that anyway.  It would be a total patzer rule.

You have a very good point. Why should people get a second chance with this preposterous move when they are stuck with all other idiot moves?

 i'm suggesting that blunders are allowed throughout the entire game except if the king is involved, and that just seems odd in some way to me.

This is actually incorrect seeing that a "checkmate" means the king has nowhere to run and is therefore captured no matter what on the next move, you just don't actually play it out. 

I think you should be able to blunder the king away and lose the game.  The whole point of the game is to capture the king.  If your opponent moves his king into check then you must figure it out for yourself that the king is capturable and win.

It isn't odd, it's the rules.  In an OTB game if someone plays an illegal move, which this would be, the other player has 2 minutes added to their clock.  If a player makes three illegal moves in a game then the other player can claim the win.

Exactly.  Castling and en passant captures are odd, too; that is chess.  My earlier semantic error aside.

The whole point of the game isn't to capture the King, the whole point of the game is to get the King into checkmate.  It would be stupid if the King could be captured because it would mean that the King could be used to capture a piece in an attacking situation where it wouldn't normally be able to, which despite putting itself at immediate risk, a very bad player might be beaten by a player playing illegal moves.

In Navia Dratp, you're allowed to move the king (Navia) into check, and the game isn't considered over unless your opponent takes it.  This is very typical of some eastern chess variants.  I believe the rule arised, one, because many of these variants are 4-player, with 2-player teams, and there are situations where it isn't always beneficial to knock out the first player on a team.  Also I think Shaturanj (and its derivitives) also has rules that a stalemate is actually a win for a player that has no legal move.  This is another reason why some of the variants allow moving into check.

I would surmise that if conventional chess allowed moving into check, then stalemates would no longer result in a draw.

AMCHarg is absolutely correct. You win the game by putting your opponents king in check when the king can not move into any other space without being in check (checkmate). Being able to move into check, would eliminate the whole concept of checkmate.

 yeah that is it right there. if it was legal to move the king into check then there couldn't be stalemates, and i don't agree with that.

 i don't even know what this post is saying. something can't be odd because it's a rule? yeah, i don't get that. there are plenty of odd rules/laws out there and the mere fact that they are rules or laws does not stop them from being odd.

(just consider some of the crazy laws that are still on the books in some american states (see here). new york for example has a law that states "Citizens may not greet each other by 'putting one’s thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers.'")

you cant move your king into check,its a simple rule as you cant jump over other pieces with the queen

cant accept that ? dont play chess, cause thats chess

 no, it is not as simple as a rule of piece movement. it is more complex than that. also, there are many variants of chess (which fall under the umbrella of chess) that have different rules. furthermore, i was not complaining about this rule or suggesting that i can't accept it (in fact, if you read all the posts i changed my opinion because of the reference to stalemates). i was merely asking what others thought about it.

I think it is the way Morphy, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tal, Petrosian, Fischer, Kasparov, Anand, and I all learned to play as an integral part of the challenge of chess, as one of the rules of movement that must be taken into account when calculating how to play.  I may never again get an opportunity to put myself in the same sentence with those other guys, so thanks for starting this.

 this still does not explain why a rule is not odd simply because it is a rule like you originally stated. and you're welcome...i guess...??

If the king willing moves into  capture (check) , that is  surrender, and typically in the time chess evolved , a captured king would have been marched through  the street in chains ,or held for a "Kings ransom " , which is dishonerable and death preferable . Today ,  It would kill the game. If you can move into check , then  you could not trap a king with two pieces , like guarding the queen with  a rook . If a king  could move into check , it could then attack through it, and that would make mate unachievable .

i don't understand what you're saying. it would make stalemates impossible (which is an obvious problem), but i don't see how it would make mates impossible. example perhaps?

it seems like your saying that the queen is checking the king in an adjacent square with the rook guarding the queen. if the king can move into check then it can just take the queen. however if that were the case, then the rook would simply take the king after the king took the queen and hence the game would be over. am i missing something here?

the problem is not with mates or ending the game. the problem is eliminating the possibility of stalemates, and that is significant.

Are you merely asking what others think about this, as you wrote above, or is this about whether a rule is odd?  Define odd.  Seriously.  Does oddity make things bad or undesirable?  I suppose it is an odd rule, but many of the other rules are at least just as odd.  Castling is a very odd rule because it lets the king move two squares, the rook jump over a piece, and you move two pieces in the same turn.   Why can pawns capture en passant to keep another pawn from taking advantage of the two square first move rule (another oddity) but if it were a bishop sitting there, even though it also captures diagonally, it could not capture the pawn moving two squares?  Pawns don't capture the way they move, even though everything else does, very odd.  Knights get to "jump" over other pieces, but nothing else does.  A pawn can be promoted to a bishop or rook instead of a queen, but what is the damn point of that?  (Promotion to a knight is occasionally useful.)

 it is odd for the reason that i stated. you are allowed to blunder all through the game but not with the king. this is not the same for castling to liken it to a comparison you made. nor is it like an en passant or a pawn promotion. none of those are a rule in which you are allowed to do something with all the pieces at any time in the game except for the king. those examples you gave are in fact the opposite (i.e. you can only do them with specific pieces at specific times). that is why i considered it odd (again, i'm using the past tense because i no longer consider it odd once someone mentioned the stalemate issues.)