You'd have to change the rules drastically. Might as well call it checkers. 
Should you have to capture the opponents king in order to win a game of chess?
Sort:
Sep 7, 2017
0
#3
I have thought about that before, being a simpler conclusion to a game. I think I'm 50/50. No more 'you can't move your king there it's in check', instead it's just a fatal blunder that loses immediately. I like this idea. But all stalemates would be a win for the stalemater too. I like the added nuance and trickery of potentially saving a game with stalemate ideas. Overall I think it adds to the game.
Sep 7, 2017
0
#5
RookSacrifice wrote:
It would just make some games 1 move longer
And all K+P vs K endgames that are now draws would be wins for the side with the pawn. Stalemate would no longer exist. Maybe some other endgames would also change from draws to wins due to no stalemate.
Also, the rule about moving a king into check would have to change so that the only time it could be moved into check is if there is no other legal move; otherwise you would get people trying to be tricky in fast time controls, exposing their king to check hoping their opponent won't notice.
Sep 7, 2017
0
#7
Well, unless you only allow a king to move into check if it is check and no other legal move exist. Then stalemate would still exist and it would just make games one move longer 
Sep 7, 2017
0
#8
starboystellan wrote:
I think that it would be cool. What do you think?
In shogi (look it up) you do. When you put your opponent in check you tell them so if they move a different piece you can take their king.
Hmm, that would probably reduce the amount of draws.
Sep 7, 2017
0
#10
Yeah cause people would miss all the checks and would get their king captured within like 20 moves. Especially <1000 players.
Sep 7, 2017
0
#11
I like stalemate. I get stalemated almost every day, (well that is a pretty big almost...) because people want to get like 3 queens at the end when they could checkmate me in like 2 moves and then they get too many and accidentally stalemate me because they didn't realize their queens were covering so many squares.
I think it would be fun if you didn't have to move your king out of check, and it didn't even notify you. Or even just as a bullet or blitz variant it would allow some variability.
correctomendo
Just throwing this out there but in otb blitz Chess making an illegal move does directly result in a loss. So you can actually take your opponents king as a way of showing him he just lost.
Cool!
AlkinKing a écrit :
Just throwing this out there but in otb blitz Chess making an illegal move does directly result in a loss. So you can actually take your opponents king as a way of showing him he just lost.
You can (and I believe) must do that based on USCF rules but it's an illegal move in FIDE tournaments and would lose you the game.
Doesn't matter. If the king capture whatever piece has put it in check they will be captured next move, so it just prolongs the game a move.
Dec 1, 2017
0
#18
No! I think Chess as it is, is about the most perfect game ever invented.
I have wondered about having a non-symmetrical set up, where the king and queen are on the same side as you’re playing, meaning as you’re facing each other opposite sides.
I have wondered about having a non-symmetrical set up, where the king and queen are on the same side as you’re playing, meaning as you’re facing each other opposite sides.
It is cruel.
I think that it would be cool. What do you think?