Needed Rule Change: Allow Players to Take The King

We need a rule change to chess. Allow players to take the King.

I mean what does checkmate really mean ? Checkmate means "MATE IN ONE". How is that any differant then "MATE IN TWO", or "MATE IN THREE" ? In all these cases the king COULD be taken by force. I mean you could make the argument that even if you had a checkmate that the checkmating player might not take the king. If for instance that he didnt notice that the checkmate had occured for instance, or if he didnt have time.

Its a small thing. But the whole idea is really to take the other players king. So why not end the game by actually finnishing the game and taking the offending king ?

Its mostly a cerimonial differance. However it actually could make a differance in time trouble.

Consider if white checkmates black and then runs out of time before white can actually take the black king. Now who should win this game ? Well if the idea of chess is to actually capture the opponents king. Then I would say the winner of the game should be black not white !!!

Comments?

the idea isn't to capture the enemy king...it's to checkmate the enemy king...

I think chess rules and such are pretty much set in stone...

Got any spare sheep lying around btw...?

No the original idea was to capture the enemy king. The idea to checkmate was only added in the early 1800's.

Um no they are all mine.

It puzzles me as to why folks think the rules of chess need to be changed or altered.  The game is fine; just play the game.

Whos changing the rules. The idea was and allways will be to take the king right ? The idea of checkmate is a recent addition anyway.

to idosheepallnight: If we were about to change this rule in chess, so the objective was to actually take the king. Should it then be allowed to put your king in a check? (I think so)

And for the record: I do not agree with your idea of changing this rule. The objective is to checkmate the king, and it should always be?

i think in speed chess live if opponent ignores a check sometime taking the king can be done to emphasise a point

 Naw, ya gotta check your chess history. Checkmate has been around for quite awhile, and if you'd played over any old games you would have noticed that.

Well, I'm sure the idea of capturing the king as opposed to killing him arose because when chess was becoming popular in Europe, the practice of chilvary was becoming the standard for knights to conduct themselves. Chivery meant, along with being nicer to women and nobles, that a knight was obliged to not kill his enemy, but rather to demand a ransom paid and to let him go. The losing noble/knight was also obliged to recognize that he was beat and give up, so it doesn't matter that the winning player notices that his opponent is defeated, but that the losing player acknowledges that he has lost.

A few things...

Checkmate isn't "mate in one".  It's more like "mate in zero", or rather, just "mate".  "Mate in one" implies there is one move until mate.

Looking at the start of each sentence, I see you progress from "We need a rule change" to "Its a small thing" to "Its mostly a ceremonial difference".  These are at odds with each other - if it's really such a small and ceremonial thing, do 'we' really 'need' it?  Checkmate simply means that the capture of the king is inevitable.  It's sort of like a forced resignation due to this fact, and many chess players can determine the inevitability of capture even before this point (normal resignation).

Finally, the point about checkmate being added in the 1900's is utterly false.  If you look at chess games from the 1800's (Paul Morphy, Adolf Andersson, Wilhelm Steinitz, etc.), they all conclude with checkmate.

Edit: Apparently, the earliest recorded game of modern chess (including checkmate) is from the 1400's.

jesus u ppl are jerks this guy posts a well thought out opinion that would help to fix some of the problems of computers RUINING chess and u make fun of him and troll him

Could you explain how this will "fix some of the problems of computers RUINING chess"?

If you have time, could you *also* explain how computers are ruining chess?

Yes I'm sure the computers--capable of seeing ten move tactics in advance--would simply be unable to deal with the added difficulty of capturing the king.  The final forced move would simply be too much for the feeble processors to handle.

 You're like the OP in that you don't know what you're talking about.

well it would be better if you had totake the king

Are you confident enough in this to overturn the rules of chess that have stood for at least hundreds of years?  I'd be interested in your argument - I don't doubt that there are valid reasons for forcing king capture, I just don't know what they are, and it seems that the most active proponents of this view are almost jealously hording them.

Personally, I think it would be a little anticlimactic.  All the buildup over avoiding checkmate, and then once it happens, you don't even have to think about your next move - the move immediately following it will be the inevitable capture.

Also, it seems that forcing king capture would eliminate the entire concept of check.  I'd rather have new players who haven't developed enough board vision to always recognize check to be told that their move which doesn't remove the check is illegal, rather than simply losing.

Sheep. Very strange name. Let's get beyond that though. Having the game end with the capture of the king might be useful as a tool for teaching those that are just learning how the pieces move but beyond that it holds no value. It makes the game longer by adding a move that is without need. Since it's beginning as the slow to develop and slow to end caturanga the rules of chess have changed to make it quicker, not to slow it down. The purpose of other proposed deviants: Capablanca chess and Advanced chess and Random chess is simply to make sure that the game does not become so well studied that it is solved. It's happened to draughts or checkers already and at some point will probably happen to chess. But adding on a move won't change that. In other words: the change you're advocating would not change any thing worth changing.

I see little difference in the argument. The idea is to win by capturing the king. I play to win, but seldom do and still love the game. Let history rule and leave the game as is.

It will be awesome if we can eat the king. but its same thing as checkmating it.