moving the king into check

I do and did understand your point.  And I agreed that I saw a certain oddness in it.  And yes, those other examples are odd for different reasons, as I thought I made clear.  But the king is also a specific piece, and it can move and capture at any time in the game except in the specific situation that it would be exposed to check.   (OK, you can't move any of your other pieces either, if doing so exposes you to check--point conceded.)  I also see your point about castling, pawn promotion and en passant being one time only, but that doesn't remove their "oddness."   Obviously, I've enjoyed discussing the topic and thought it was worth discussing, or I would have spent the afternoon ignoring it.  Blunders are certainly a big part of chess.  Some games, it feels like all I do is blunder:)  But it usually takes more than just one move (either before or after the blunder) to turn it into a victory.  Winning on a gotcha because my opponent is hard of hearing and didn't hear me say "check" would feel like no win at all.  To me, it would feel like winning on time because my opponent had a heart attack--hollow.  Besides, from your rating, it looks like you would beat me without having to resort to a gotcha.

Trigs, I wasn't stating that the proposition was odd because it didn't comply with the rules, I was stating that it was odd because it wouldn't be Chess anymore.  It's like playing football but deciding that there should be two balls instead of one.  The object of Chess is to get the King into checkmate, just like the object of Checkers is to wipe out your opponent's pieces.

The other obvious issues as already stated are stalemate, and the fact that it's illegal for the King to move across a path of check when castling.  Castling across a line of check is illegal, but doesn't necesarily mean the King would be able to be captured on the next move, and so gives he who is castling a significant advantage.

I think the main point is that this is fairly pointless (no offense, just my opinion).  It's like trying to argue that pawns should move diagonally and attack forward because it seems more logical as attacking forward was done in real battles.

You know what else is a funny rule in chess? I lost a game once because of a queen checkmating my king and my inability to capture the queen because it was protected by its knight. The funny part was that the knight was pinned. Even though it wouldn't be able to do anything to my king since it would involve a check on the king, rules state that I am not allowed to capture the queen. I won't make that mistake again.

en passant is not an odd rule if you bothered to look up the history of where it came from.  Same goes for castling.  And think logically, the reason that you can hang pieces other than the king is so that there is the opportunity for some other kind of gain.  If i feel like leaving a knight out to be captured for the chance to improve my position and give my opponent significant troubles fending off checkmate then there is a reason to be allowed to supposedly blunder away pieces or actually blunder them.  However the king is different because there can be no positive outcome from losing the king. The game would be over.  Not being able to put the king in check is a good rule and without it the whole point of the game, Checkmate would be impossible to achieve.

Well, you can, but in some cases you could be disqualified for making and illegal move. Other cases you would get a time penalty and have to move back. Atomic chess on the other hand I think it is  appropriate to not have mates, its too fast of a game. Although I think you can get "mated" traditionally in atomic, it is 20X more likely that you will be blown up.

I think I recall some kind of chess varient that takes this into account. Maybe not, but I've always found such positions intersting. Pins are not part of the "rules" they are just an abstraction of them. But in such positions they are irrelevant. If you think about it, if you did take the queen you'd be in check. And even if he moved his knight to take your king, putting himself in check, youd be the first to die, so it is a just a simplification, even if the rules were different.

I think it would be interesting if pinned pieces(at least to the king) wernt really attacking you.It would end up being really confusing.

So maybe this question was already answered but what if by moving a piece (say a queen) in order to complete the checkmate by killing the king, your king would be exposed to a check situation. Would that be considered checkmate? or because you can't move a piece if it puts your king in check, is it not checkmate yet?

yes, you have it! You can't move any piece that would put your king in check by doing so. Even if there is a lovely checkmate just one move away.

Having read most of this post, i guess Trigs could invent a new version that involves his proposition-allowing King to blunder into check- but i basically agree with A McHarg and BrianplaysTrashed that Chess has it's rules, odd or not depending on your opinion, and the Game itself exists by virtue of them. Other variants are interesting but since there are sooooooo many possible outcomes in any game of Chess it's still gonna be the greatest game on earth imho.

When you move your Queen to complete checkmate you're not killing your opponent's King (yet); at checkmate you've only got him in a situation where he can't avoid being captured on your next move. If it were legal to expose your own King to immediate capture by making the mating move, your King would (if play were allowed to continue) be captured one move before your opponent's. That's why it's an illegal move.

I think it helps to remember what an elegant concept checkmate is. 

Strictly speaking, the aim of chess is nothing so crude as to “capture the King,” as you would capture a humble pawn or Queen’s Bishop. Instead, the rules of chess set the bar a little higher: they demand that you contrive a situation in which the enemy King has no avenue of escape and, beyond a shadow of doubt, will fall on your next move. That’s a higher and more interesting aim than “I really hope my opponent doesn’t notice my fianchettoed Bishop and blunders away his King!”

There’s a unique satisfaction in providing irrefutable prove that, thanks to your own cunning and matchless strategic vision, the enemy King is ensnared in a carefully prepared net and has nowhere to run. The sense of accomplishment that derives from even the simplest mate is one of the charms of the game, and is partly responsible for keeping so many of us from leading productive, meaningful lives and wasting the best years of our lives on a board game.   

A simultaneously inspiring and depressing sentiment!