The game developed in the middle ages.. the leaders of nations (all kings) viewed capture as a preferrable option to "regicide". Oftentimes Kings were captured on the battlefield rather than killed anyway for purposes of ransom.
Why not capture the King?
Sort:
Too right CapAnson . Kings aren't killed by other Kings! They are rendered powerless: either to be ransomed or to retire to accept the new order or to prepare to fight another day.
Think of Napoleon! Think of The Great War: Kaiser Willhelm wasn't dragged back to England and executed by his cousin George! This business of war with the losing 'King' being executed was a WW2 concept.
If we're going to look to the middle ages to provide a rationale for the game mechanics, then we would need to reduce the queen back to a simple advisor since that is all it was back then. The fact is, the game of chess has seen numerous changes to the rules over the centuries in an effort to improve the game. Only a parochial arrogance would assume that the game is perfect now. I see no reason to think that the rules of stalemate should be any more immune from reevaluation (and possible change) than the very identity and movement powers of one of the pieces (i.e., the queen), or the issues of king safety in the opening (which led to the implementation of a radical new mechanic called castling).
Going back to old Spanish rule in which a stalemate would be scored as a lesser win, would reduce the complexity of endgames.
better just to declare 1 e4 a win for white
ectp wrote:
Sorry if this is a stupid thread, but this topic has been bugging me.
Basically, the rules of check and stalemate seem pointless.
Wouldn't chess be more interesting and make more sense (and also have far fewer draws) if you won by simply capturing the enemy king? You would be allowed to move your king into check, but you would instantly lose if your opponent recognized that he could capture your king. Stalemates wouldn't happen because you'd have to move your king into check and the person with the better position would get to capture your king and (justly in my opinion) win the game.
So what am I missing ?
logic
Considering stalemate as it stands today wasn't codified as a full draw until the 19th century, any appeal to the "middle ages" is nonsensical. The stalemate position over the years has been considered as many different outcomes, even as a full win for the trapped king.
If one finds the concept of check/stalemate too difficult, then there are plenty of simpler games to choose from.
timbeau wrote:
If one finds the concept of check/stalemate too difficult, then there are plenty of simpler games to choose from.
Apr 1, 2013
0
#31
stalemates actually happen more than people expect. I am 1599 and in one of my FIDE games I was 2 pawns down. I then found a combination that forces a stalemate, causing a draw. Stalemate is not just for beginners.
Bit deep for me, Sunofthemorninglight . (Great name, by the way...)
I think combinations that force stalemate are hot. I love seeing one of those.
Oh, I don't know. Finding a combination that leaves your king with no legal moves hardly strikes me as celebratory (in a philosophical sense). It is only by the arbitrary decision to declare this game state a draw that we are allowed to pat ourselves on the back for reaching a position with no playable continuation.
You capture the king. That's basically what you do on the next move after the checkmate.
ItsEoin wrote:
I think combinations that force stalemate are hot. I love seeing one of those.
Would they be any less hot, if they saved 1/4 point instead of a 1/2 point? Also scoring a stalemate as a .75 win would open up a whole new class of hot combinations where the person initiating the combination stalemated his opponent.
only nerds would want those points
zslane wrote:
Oh, I don't know. Finding a combination that leaves your king with no legal moves hardly strikes me as celebratory (in a philosophical sense). It is only by the arbitrary decision to declare this game state a draw that we are allowed to pat ourselves on the back for reaching a position with no playable continuation.
Yes...so?!
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
You capture the king. That's basically what you do on the next move after the checkmate.
in bughouse kings can capture a protected queen. The side partner need to recapture the new king on the opposite board in order so you don't lose on time.
This hoary old chestnut again!
The name of the game is Chess. In Chess, the King is not taken. In Chess, there are no murderers "getting off on a procedural error", so stop reducing the game to the level of LA Law. The game is competitive and complicated. (And thats an undesrtatement!) Allowing the King to be taken could well simplify the game... Think about it!
If you don't like Chess then play Cluedo (having never played that game I might be on thin ice there). Or stick with the right/wrong, good/bad, us/them action of those evildumbwicked insidious digital war games.