Actually I think the name for that position is amusing-to-all-but-the-arbiter pre-arranged-and-composed-draw. Also, as a puzzle find a mate in three for Black instead of Nb8-Nc6 1/2-1/2.
because moving your king onto a square that can be captured is an illegal move.
This rule is about as stupid as the stalemate rule (well, it is the stalemate rule)
Its much more logical and simple to simply have the one rule "capture the king"... (in this rule it is already implicit ... that dont move your king into check)
Why put silly restrictions on it... if the opponent wants to move his king where it will be captured ..... let him! Why make it illegal ??
Also I find the definition of mate silly...
"where the king cant move without check"
who thinks in such silly ways ?
it should be
"you king will be captured next move"
its much more logical and simple.
You are correct, the definition of checkmate is that the king will be captured on the next move, and at the same time another way to say it is when the king cannot be moved out of check.
We must not forget however, though that this is a strategy game. If the King were allowed to move himself into check then there would be no chess. Because it is illegal to put your own king in check, the game results in a draw when positions like this come about, taken from http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=1289049#. It just so happens that there is a name for this draw: A stalemate. This is no worse than a draw with each side having only a king left on board, b/c who is going to move their king next to the opposing king?
If the King were allowed to move himself into check then there would be no chess.
Why ?
he could move it into check and then the opponent simply takes it and game over. What is the problem here?
If we make such silly exceptions for the king... lets make some exceptions for the queen too... "you cant move the queen into a position where it can be attacked" its silly.
probably you would have a more logical and boring game ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#Proposed_rule_change
If you don't like the stalemate rule try playing Scrabble instead. When you're down a few hundred pts vs someone way better and/or way luckier there is no possibility of a "stalemate" so you already know you're going to lose before the game is over, which I find to be a real drag. You'll like it though.
You should also start playing checkers, in which the player who is stalemated loses. Funny thing though, as obscure as chess may seem, (say, compared to baseball and football in the USA) it still seems downright mainstream compared to checkers...and scrabble...and all the other second-rate games with no possibility of stalemate to add some interest or hope to a player who is getting mopped up during the game.
BTW I like checkers and scrabble, but not as much as chess.
It happens to masters a lot as well!
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7463
have a look at the position in the middle!
Its ridiculous
Nope, players who get stung by stalemates are dopes!
Rubbish!
check out this example!
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7463
I think chess without stalemate would be a much duller game. Endgames a pawn up would be much easier to win, and therefore sacrificing a pawn would be a much bigger risk than it is now.
Also, as a puzzle find a mate in three for Black instead of Nb8-Nc6 1/2-1/2.
Also there is a mate in 2 at the start of the puzzle. 18...fxg3!
18. ... fxg3 is mate in 3, not mate in 2. 19. f4 gxh2+ 20. g3 Bxg3#
I think chess without stalemate would be a much duller game. Endgames a pawn up would be much easier to win, and therefore sacrificing a pawn would be a much bigger risk than it is now.
I think this is a silly argument...
rules should be simple and logical, logically consistent. Chess will be just as fun with this rule changed...
I mean... why not make other "crazy rules" to make chess "less boring"?
How about the queen can move like a knight on move 23 ?
Chess would be less boring with that rule too right ?
Actually I think the name for that position is amusing-to-all-but-the-arbiter pre-arranged-and-composed-draw. Also, as a puzzle find a mate in three for Black instead of Nb8-Nc6 1/2-1/2.
No. 19...Bg5? 20 Rxg5.
Also there is a mate in 2 at the start of the puzzle. 18...fxg3!
Well, then "Everything works except moving the Bishops".
And I went for a mate in 3 because I was asked for a mate in 3. I didn't even think of fxg3!, nice one!
I love it when you have one person who doesn't like a particular long-standing chess rule so they think it needs to be abolished. Kind of like when someone on here a while back was saying that castling is cheating.
And I went for a mate in 3 because I was asked for a mate in 3. I didn't even think of fxg3!, nice one!
fxg3 is also mate in 3 anyway.
Can we get rid of the Checkmate rule too? It would do wonders for my rating.
rules should be simple and logical, logically consistent. Chess will be just as fun with this rule changed...
I mean... why not make other "crazy rules" to make chess "less boring"?
How about the queen can move like a knight on move 23 ?
Chess would be less boring with that rule too right ?
Whatever else you want to claim, chess is logically consistent. There are no rules that are in conflict with each other. The rule even makes sense -- there is a rule that says kings can't move into check, therefore there is a stalemate rule.
Why not remove other crazy rules, like castling? Or en passant? Or jumping knights? Or pawns moving two squares only on their initial move? In fact -- why do pawns move differently than they capture, that makes no sense at all! And promotion! It's a nice idea, but why the choice, why not an automatic queen? Why should a game be fun at all?
Or perhaps the fact that the basic rules haven't changed for a few centuries now while the game is still popular should be a hint to you.
And I went for a mate in 3 because I was asked for a mate in 3. I didn't even think of fxg3!, nice one!
fxg3 is also mate in 3 anyway.
1...fxg3! 2.Qxg3 Bxg3#
or 2.c6 gxh2#
stalemate is equivalent to this:
1) we agree that whoever captures the king first wins.
2) then during the game your one move from capturing my king, i cant stop it... i give you a *smile* and a *wink* and say... lets call it a draw.
It turns normal chess into the suicde chess variant.
The only difference between "stale"mate and "check"mate is in stalemate your king is not in check. So what... next move it will be taken! Who cares whether its in check or not now ?
And I went for a mate in 3 because I was asked for a mate in 3. I didn't even think of fxg3!, nice one!
fxg3 is also mate in 3 anyway.
1...fxg3! 2.Qxg3 Bxg3#
or 2.c6 gxh2#
1. ... fxg3 2. c6 gxh2+ 3. g3!
I love it when you have one person who doesn't like a particular long-standing chess rule so they think it needs to be abolished. Kind of like when someone on here a while back was saying that castling is cheating.
many people dont like this rule...
It is very different to castling or en passent (which i dont have problems with)
the goal is to capture the king!
let me do it!
Stalemate is a massive contradiction.
why stop the game 1 move before im about to achieve the objective?
The only difference between "stale"mate and "check"mate is in stalemate your king is not in check. So what... next move it will be taken, captured, killed, assassinated (which is the goal, right ?) ! Who cares whether its in check or not now ?
imagine a war scenario...
1 army has destroyed the other... all thats left is the king, the commander with the winning army around him... the "losing king" has no where to run or hide.
then the whole winning army says
"he cant move anywhere now! we cant win!"
I believe Capablanca, Reti, Lasker and many of their contemporaries also argued a lot for this. You should read the chapter The death of chess in Watson's Secrets of modern chess strategy for further explanation.