Take the King?!

I recently started teaching a library chess club. Many of the players are young kids who have never played before. When trying to explain checkmate, I realized... checkmate is really confusing! Of course it's second nature to experienced chess players, but when you step back and think about it, it's pretty weird. The goal is to get the king, but the game stops right before that actually happens!

So I was thinking maybe it's a good idea to play a simplified version of chess where the game simply ends with taking the king. Of course, this isn't quite "real chess," but if you think about it, there was probably a point in chess history where the game ended with taking the king, but checkmate was introduced as a courtesy or time-saver. Anyway, it's well-known that the best way to teach the rules is to start with simplified games. Anyone who's tried to teach chess knows that throwing the whole rulebook at a new player right away doesn't work very well. 

Advantages of "take the king" chess:

• Easier to learn and explain. Introduces the idea that the game ends when one player gets the other's king without requiring checkmate, which is confusing and usually takes a long time to fully understand.
• Creates a way for the game to end. Games ending with a player not noticing check might seem like a downside, but for new players I think it's a positive. Often games between beginners drag out for too long because neither player knows how to engineer a checkmate and it's very frustrating for both players.

So what do you think of "take the king chess" as a stepping stone for beginners?

It probably is a decent stepping stone but you have to be really careful to transition them and make sure they don't leave the king in check, move the king into check, or move another piece exposing the king to check.

With allowing the king to be taken, you have to allow all of those things, which may confuse them later.

That's a good point, but I think the transition could be pretty smooth if you explain it carefully. It would be a lot more confusing if for some reason allowing the king to be taken was desirable in "take the king chess", but it's not, it's a disaster (you lose the game if your opponent notices). So I think the transition from "you really don't want to let your king be taken" to "letting your king get taken is actually against the rules" is pretty intuitive. Basically, the second is a stronger version of the first.

in the movie Queen of Katwe the mentor dude explains checkmate as putting your opponent's king in jail rather than killing it or whatever

Trapping the king is another way to explain checkmate. The king is trapped and nowhere to go without being taken.

That is stalemate.

@bong711

You can say "The enemy king cannot move anywhere and is in check."

Hello NateSolon. The way that I learned to play chess was through a game called "No Stress Chess". You can buy it at toy stores for about $15. The game teaches chess through cards that have the chess piece you move on them. When you draw the card you are required to move that piece on the chessboard. Check rules, en passant, and castling do not apply. Opening moves are required on the chessboard to open the position. If you draw a card that has a piece you cannot move your turn is passes to the next player. Gradually throughout the games you can introduce new rules and freedoms to move all of your pieces. All of these "levels" are explained in the instructions. Good luck with teaching and I hope this information helps.     

Queen of Katwe was a good movie for chess players like us