This is an example of checkmate, but should it really be?

In this example we can see 1. Be6 is double-check and mate. BUT if black plays 1... Kg7 then technically the Rook isn't "allowed" to advance and capture the king because it's pinned and would allow black to immediately respond by capturing White's king.

I know it's about whoever's king falls first but this irks me a little.

The king is not allowed to advance into a square that is under enemy attack.  The g7 square, as is f7, g3, g4, g5, and g6 squares are all under attack by white's pieces.

Since g8 is under attack, it is checkmate.

Under your logic, black's king can be both under attack by two pieces, and move into a square under attack, but white  may not move his rook because the white king would be under attack.

I just thought of a new chess varient: instead of checkmating the opponent's king, just play last man standing. Play until only one piece is left on the board, or you capture all your opponent's pieces. Draw is declared if there is no possible way to take all your opponents pieces.

But if that White rook moves, it would have captured the Black king before the Black bishop captures the White king.

Technically the objective of the game is to capture the opponent's king first.

It's sad though.

Weird things like this can happen. It's about whichever king falls first.

The object of the game is checkmate, not capture the king. If the enemy king can't escape check, mission accomplished and whether or not he can theoretically be captured next move is irrelevant. 

The actual idea is to capture the opponent's king, this is just simply represented by a checkmate on the board because the king would be captured next.

Five policemen surrounding one thief ("checkmate of the king") does not lead to the thief being captured. The thief may well subdue the five policemen if he/she is skilled. "Victory" is only guaranteed when the thief is apprehended ("capture of the king").

I wonder what will happen to chess if actual capture of the king to win a game is implemented.

FIDE rules .. Article 3.1.3.

Read it and be irked no more.

Nowhere in the rules of chess is capturing the king mentioned.  The purpose of the game is checkmate (although there are other means to end the game, none of which involve capturing the king).  Anything else is merely projection. 

1.2
The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.

If King goes to g7 it's still in check by the Rook, yer daft man.

Lol that made me realize, the whole King rules ARE very strange! Think above about it, it would be much simpler game wise if the king COULD move into check, and the goal was to actually CAPTURE the king. In effect treating it like every other piece. Stalemates would vanish as would a lot of the drawn endgames based on stalemates (rook pawn for instance).

Anyone know how those weird King rules came into being in the first place?

It is strange indeed, but it would be nicer if the rules allowed a king to walk into a check.

In answer to the OP's query, yes. It is logical and consistent. It is always better to learn the rules than to seek to change them.

In the most simple way, You can always assume that it is the king that directs every piece how to move. If king himself is killed, all the other pieces lose their potential at once. Using this argument, it can be clearly seen that if Kg7 is played, and the rook takes the king, the bishop has no commander and hence he is not able to move.

Of course this is only a simplistic view, but it fits well enough.

If you're gonna make chess compare to real life in some way, kindly explain how serfs become queens.

No, it isn't.  The goal of the game is to checkmate, as defined in the rules.  The fact that you think the little horsies and pawns actually represent some type of human reality that we must try to adhere to is cute, but meaningless.  Chess is a logical construct, not a metaphor for life.

The chess rules can indeed easily be rewritten to permit capturing a king as a consequence of playing out checkmate positions. Players already do that in their minds when verifying the checkmate condition. Nobody does what the FIDE rules say. They are artificial and aim to bar you from executing the kings execution - if ye know what I mean.

However, the basis of the checkmate chess rule is courtesy and should be respected as such. Forcing you to actually eliminate the king is like telling you you are so stupid that you might even miss the capture of the king. Kind of a decent argument.

By the way, if anyone would consider changing the checkmate rules, they'd better be careful with stalemates. Continuing play unrestricted will end the life of a stalemated king as certainly as that of a checkmated king.

https://www.facebook.com/Chessskill/posts/2302700136480727

In a chess club many years ago, we had the rule in blitz (only) that if someone leaves it's King in check, you capture it and it ends the game. Of course, we did not call Check! Another rule we had is if you notice the flag is down but there is a mate on the board, you don't lose on time.