Stalemate sucks and it needs to be removed

Chess is obviously based on war. Your claim is that it is based on killing the enemies king, not that it was simply based on war. Showing a video game that is intended to be based on a missile defense system as it is called "Missile Defense" isn't some grand idea. Chess isn't named "kill the enemies king".

Wrong again, shāh māt means "the king is helpless". It also isn't the oldest name for chess as we understand it. The oldest name is Chaturanga which has nothing to do with the king. The term "shāh māt" comes from ancient Persia where the idea of announcing check and the rule that the king cannot walk into check nor be left in check was created so bringing it up is not in your favor at all.

Again wrong. These are easily searchable claims you're making so I won't even bother posting here. I'll just reiterate that it's a video game. [s]Besides, if it did really predate real missile defense systems then maybe chess predates war. Maybe we only started going to war because of the game of chess? That's an idea so I get a point. [/s]

Except that the game came out in 1980. You think that there were no missile defense systems prior to 1980? Why are you so interested in winning points that you're willing to make blatantly false claims? The first modern era missiles were launched in WWII. You really think we just waited 40 years and only started making missile defense systems after somebody made a video game?

Yes, because using publicly available information is stupid. I bet you've never visited a library then and anybody who does is stupid.

Must not be too obvious considering this is also wrong.

Not hard to understand that all of your claims have been false. Information doesn't give understanding, but to gain understanding, you first need the correct information. None of your information is correct.

The reason why is because that is the rule. I know that you can't understand this because it's only information and information doesn't give you understanding.

That's an illegal move and you can claim victory as far I know of(I don't know too much). He could have also blocked check or taken the piece that was checking him.

Anyway, it has been fun but this discussion will never bear any fruit because all you want to do is woo us with your incorrect knowledge and score points. You don't really want to know why because you think you already have all of the (incorrect) answers.

Because only a douchebag would want the game to end accidentally like that. To avoid those accidental endings, the ancient Persians made rules to avoid them. This is honestly the last post in this discussion that I will make. I'll cap it off by asking you to realize that everyone else has understood this rule for thousands of years, maybe it's time for this information to help you understand that you're "the stupid" rather than everybody else.

I thought it was the opposite flight simulators were before videogames I hear someone that videogames might have gotten an idea from those simulators but I would be wrong

If someone hangs a queen for nothing and still wins that means you just suck...

It is just good sportsmanship to remind your opponent your in check

No a flight simulator isn't a fancy videogame

It is a fancy simulator... Sure it could be a game but still training bedides that was before videogames were public or simulators

Nope I have had many games where I won down a queen lmao you don't have to let him take back a move but if you want you can

But you should let your opponent be in check as it is against the rules for your king to be in check(unless) it is checkmate

The reason you should tell them is because your opponent is making an illegal move

Top tier players can make illegal moves and get penalized for it, whether it be time penalty or forfeit, and if you really don't wanna win like that, just tell him he's in check and he should take that back.

In this case, referee=arbiter, call him over

No offense analogies work for something but boxing isn't a turn based game chess is .... In board games unless it says you can break the rules you are cheating

So moving the king an illegal check is practically cheating at a game

That's why it is good sportsmanship you are helping your opponent not break a rule.... I'm curious if your even actually good at chess you seem like a 1000 l

Hanging a queen is something that can happen with a legal move.

Leaving a king in check (or moving a king into check, or moving away a piece that is blocking check) is a disallowed illegal move and needs to be undone. Moving Pg2-g5 orNg1-e3 or Bc1-g4 or Rh4-b5 are also illegal moves and need to be undone (even if you are able to capture the Knight on e3 or the Bishop on g4 or the Rook on b5 or the Pawn on g5 you are not allowed to do so because the move was impossible to legally make). In FIDE two illegal moves lose the game.

Asking why the King cannot be captured is similar to asking why bishops have to move diagonally, why rooks have to move orthogonally, why knights have to move in an L shape and are allowed to jump over pieces, why a pawn can move one or two squares on the first move and only one thereafter.

Pretty much every endeavor has basic rules. One example is the arithmetic proof below that only fails because of violating a basic rule:

Let a=b

Multiplying both sides by a gives a*a = a*b

subtracting b*b from both sides gives a*a - b*b = a*b - b*b

factoring both sides gives (a+b) * (a-b) = b * (a-b)

removing the common factor gives a+b = b

substituting b for a (because there were initially set to be equal) gives b+b=b or 2*b=1*b

removing the common factor gives 2=1

basic underlying rules are critical to avoiding ridiculous results.