We should kill the king
Sort:
I agree all of the pieces get killed even his own wife can get killed. He doesn’t get killed just sent away and on a royal time out he should be killed as well as his army.
Stormy-Boy-2007 wrote:
Also, eliminate stalemate.
That's the spirit!
The king in chess isn't just protected, he's sacred. You can't move him into danger. If he's trapped but not in check? Not a win. Not a capture. Just a pat on the back and "we'll call it a draw".
That's not strategy, it's storytelling, a leftover myth from when kings were considered untouchable. Even in games, because saying "I killed your king" might upset a power-mad narcissist. The rules bend to spare him. Everyone else dies, but the king? He gets a timeout.
It's brainwashing, plain and simple. Kill the king. Every game. No exceptions.
Jun 18, 2025
0
#5
One house rule I sometimes use (and like), is doing check and checkmate like normal, but, after someone calls checkmate and wins, the checkmated player (just for fun) makes their move anyway and lets the winner take their King.
None of the pieces in chess, including the king, get killed. They get captured. Once they are captured, they leave the board (or go to jail so to speak). They don't get killed. Checkmate is the king being captured (not killed).
Because checkmate is the end of the game, there is no reason to "kill" or even remove the king. He's captured by definition (there is no legal defense preventing his capture) so there is no reason to remove him from the board.
If it makes you feel better after the game is over (checkmate) and the opponent forfeits his turn you can take two turns in a row. The first move would be the checkmating move, the second move would be to move your checkmating piece to where the king is. Capture and remove the king. Nobody will care because the game is already over.
It always amazes me when people type more words than they read.
Atomic chess.
The king gets blown up.
Think, people, think!
One thing is for sure. FIDE isn't going to throw out more than 500 years of chess history by changing some basic rule (like stalemate or checkmate). That isn't going to happen.
Not that there is any reason to do it anyway.
Who died and made FIDE king?
Do you see what I did there? Tradition is a great excuse to do something when you can't think of any good reasons.
Jun 20, 2025
0
#13
Someone has not done all their homework. Quoth Wikipedia (with copious citation):
Moghadam traced the etymology of the word mate. It comes from a Persian verb mandan (ماندن), meaning "to remain", which is cognate with the Latin word maneō and the Greek menō (μένω, which means "I remain"). It means "remained" in the sense of "abandoned" and the formal translation is "surprised", in the military sense of "ambushed".[11] "Shāh" (شاه) is the Persian word for the monarch. Players would announce "Shāh" when the king was in check. "Māt" (مات) is a Persian adjective for "at a loss", "helpless", or "defeated". So the king is in mate when he is ambushed, at a loss, helpless, defeated, or abandoned to his fate.[12]
In modern Persian, the word mate depicts a person who is frozen, open-mouthed, staring, confused and unresponsive. The words "stupefied" or "stunned" bear close correlation. So a possible alternative would be to interpret mate as "unable to respond". A king being in mate (shah-mat) then means a king is unable to respond, which would correspond to there being no response that a player's king can make to the opponent's final move. This interpretation is much closer to the original intent of the game being not to kill a king but to leave him with no viable response other than surrender, which better matches the origin story detailed in the Shahnameh.
Jun 20, 2025
0
#14
In addition, requiring a king to be captured in an additional move is not merely "cosmetic" but actually changes the status of some positions (ie. it becomes a completely different game). Consider any position, for example, where a side is checked, and then a player interposes with a piece, giving checkmate...
1. "I didn't do my homework". Also from Wikipedia "In early Sanskrit chess (c. 500–700), the king could be captured and this ended the game." Now let's dive into the "copious citations" which include a little book called 'The Oxford Companion to Chess' that states checkmate means "the King is dead".
2. Yes, the game would change, as it did for centuries before we became static in our thinking. That said, I'm unclear what your """completely different game""" scenario proves. If it's what we currently refer to as checkmate, then the next move will capture (which is not mutually exclusive with killing, other person) the king. If the interposing piece can be captured then it isn't mate. If the other team threatens with check/mate again, it doesn't matter, because their king will be captured before they can follow through.
Since we're talking scenarios, let's discuss two that currently happen that shine a light on how absurd the situation is:
In the first, I blunder my queen. You laugh and snatch it without mercy. That’s the game. Actions have consequences.
In the second, I blunder my king. You... stop the game to lecture me about how that’s “against the rules.” Not only can’t you take him, I’m not even allowed to make the mistake.
That’s how whipped modern chess is. The king isn’t a piece, he’s a protected class. Everyone else dies for your mistakes. The king gets a rulebook and a safety net. It’s pathetic.
That's because you can't take the king, only prevent it's further movement. If you are so intent on taking the king, take it. After the game is over, move your checkmating piece to where the king is. Take it. Nobody is going to care and it will make you happy, all at once.
Jun 20, 2025
0
#17
> In early Sanskrit chess
Who tf cares, you gave incorrect etymology and based your whole premise on that flawed incorrect fact. (ie. didn't do your homework). Go play on earlysanskritchess.com then if you like, and you will be free of the Unbearable Psychological Oppression.
What are you even trying to accomplish here? No one is going to play your "new" game.
Ngl, I've had this thought for a while. A variant where "check" and "checkmate" doesn't exist, and the king is a captuarable piece that still wins you the game. Probably exists tbh. The only real difference would be with lower skill levels not seeing threats to their kings, accidentally blundering their kings or missing opportunities to capture the enemy king.
Jun 20, 2025
0
#19
Yeah I wonder if you should actually have to capture the king like when we play we put the king in danger but never take it…….”I’m from Central African Republic”🇨🇫
Ever notice how in chess, we never actually kill the king? The whole board can be a bloodbath of obliterated pieces, pawns tossed aside like cannon fodder. But the king? He gets surrounded, gently informed of his loss, and sent away. It’s a royal timeout. That’s not a design flaw, it’s propaganda. A holdover from a time when people believed kings were untouchable, that spills over into modern-day golden parachutes.
In early versions of the game, like chaturanga and shatranji, the king could be captured. “Checkmate” originally meant “the king is dead.” But as chess made its way into feudal Europe, suddenly, the king became too sacred to kill. The rules changed to protect his majesty, reflecting a society that bowed before divine right and couldn’t stomach the idea of a toppled crown, even in a board game. That attitude stuck, and we’ve been playing by those imperial rules, letting them fester in our minds, ever since.
It’s time to change that. Kill the king. Not out of spite, but principle, because there’s subtle psychological power in a game. Forget this aristocratic nonsense. Let every game be a reminder that no one is above consequences.