If you're in check and your opponent runs out of time to take your king (as stated by the proposed rule change) then, have you really won? No, you lost the game and in the opponent's time expiration you take the victory away from him.
This would be good to teach new players or younger players, but check mate the way it is, should stay.
Putting someone in check mate is the ultimate goal, and a sense of true accomplishment comes out when you win out of skill, not luck. Leave this rule be.
you must just be fishing for something to post...
The problem is that on checkmate you put the other guys king in check.. and it's his move... that's why... it's not your move.. you can't take the king.. it's the other guys move... and he can't move
if once you get him in checkmate you want to take ANOTHER turn to take his king off of the board then all the power to you.. it is your time that you are wasting.. not mine... I shall use my extra half second to get a headstart on cleaning up the pieces
You're really making something very complicated out of something simple. Chess is complicated enough as is, let's not try to add any more stipulations (and the many loophopes that always come with them).
As Haze just said, because the opponent has NO legal moves by definition, the game ends. That's the basic object of the game - to prevent the opponent from making his next move.
For starters you have to put the king in a check it cant get out of, then the black king would have to move, before you could capture it. Chess being Turn based would make that a parodox. If the king could move it wouldnt be a checkmate. Howver if you are so inclined to capture a king, then there is a 4 player chess game out there, where the capture of the king is allowed, which gives you control of that players reaming forces. Its mad crazy game because you have three opponnents trying to kick your arse, as well as trying to kick each other's arse.
You're really making something very complicated out of something simple. Chess is complicated enough as is, let's not try to add any more stipulations (and the many loophopes that always come with them).
As Haze just said, because the opponent has NO legal moves by definition, the game ends. That's the basic object of the game - to prevent the opponent from making his next move.
Exactly!
To change the rules of a game which has been around for god knows how long is just ridiculous. Past games/players/experience has proven that there is no major flaw in the game of chess, so what exactly is the point of change?
Rules are rules - if you don't like them, don't play the game.
Well I think we have a consensus here. The kings ass is hereby declared to be sacred.
What's needed is a rule that only those that have truly mastered the game should be lsitened to when a drastic rules change is offered.
The rest of the crowd: You don't know enough to be taken seriously on this subject.
For the beginners who think they can improve a game they really don't understand: Lol.
Dude, seriously, Right on! I agree.. lol
Youngdude the word checkmate means "dead king" so your whole dont harm the king thing is bogus.
I'm not sure where you get your information, but you are sadly mistaken. Here is the real meaning of the word;
The term checkmate is an alteration or Hobson-Jobson of the Persian phrase "Shāh Māt" which means, literally, "the King is ambushed" (or "helpless" or "defeated"). It does not literally mean "the King is dead", although that is a common misconception, as chess reached Europe via the Islamic world, and Arabic māta مَاتَ means "died", "is dead".[1]
Moghadam traced the etymology of the word mate. It comes from a Persian verb mandan, meaning "to remain", which is cognate with the Latin word manco. It means "remained" in the sense of "abandoned" and the formal translation is "surprised", in the military sense of "ambushed" (not in the sense of "astonished"). So the king is in mate when he is ambushed, at a loss, or abandoned to his fate (Davidson 1981:70-71).
The term checkmate has come to mean in modern parlance an irrefutable and strategic victory.
Chess is the best game in the world. It's a perfect game.
If it's ain't broke don't fix it.
Sometimes I get so caught up in a wild speculative attack that I will accidentally sac my king. I think I would lose a lot fewer games if I could keep on playing even after I'm in checkmate. All I need is just one more move...
There's lots of Chess variants where capture of the King is allowed, and especially in multi-player (3 or 4 player) where you keep playing even if your King is captured.
You can play however you want to, as long as your opponent agrees with the rule changes. We've even had a "Suicide Chess" tournament on the site (object was to get rid of all your pieces except the King).
The point isn't that you can't change the rules, the point is that if you do, you're playing a different game.
Do you have no morals, it was set up just take control and make the king feel bad not make him feel like crap
ahhahaahhaha