>In the game of chess, the game is not officially concluded by the actual capture of the king.
This is nonsense.The point of a game is to receive the satisfaction of achieving its object, not stopping "just-short", even if the last bits are an automatic formality.
Forthwith, all chess games shall be officially recorded as follows: a player places the other in checkmate. The losing player actually moves his piece in a legal, yet futile manner, as the penultimate move. Then the winning player actually captures the losing player's king, removing same from board. At this point, the chess game is actually concluded.
Dominic Reed
Agreed. I have no complaints about this and don't believe further discussion could expand on this beyond a personal hangup that isn't official in any capacity.
Now what?
Jaxson Jones
I further extrapolate that being as the point of a game is to have fun, and being more clever than the other player is always fun, and under the assumption that more possible moves (without disregarding rules entirely) increases opportunity to be clever, then to further improve this game we should remove the concept of squares entirely, and replace them with asymmetric polygons, to facilitate more fluid movement of each piece.
Jaxson Nelson
The point is to outsmart your opponent. That is achieved by restricting their options. There is literally no point in actually taking the king. If you took no satisfaction in achieving the checkmate then you're literally too stupid for chess.
Cooper Collins
Don't forget having MLG re-play of taking the king mandatory.
Ayden Adams
Don't most games finish like five moves before that point anyway?
Cooper Reed
Well, I thought your idea was stupid as shit, but you said forthwith, so clearly you're a highly intelligent, sophisticated gentleman and plebs like me have no place challenging your enlightened opinions.
Jace Wilson
Or even further. AFAIK, there has been ONE world chess championship game played out to checkmate, and most decisive games are well before. Check out pic related. White is up a pawn in a rook endgame where black's poor rook position makes things hopeless, but this could still go on for another 20 moves before queening if Karjakin really felt like dragging it out for some reason.
>The losing player actually moves his piece in a legal, yet futile manner, as the penultimate move. But that's wrong you retard. It's illegal to make a move which leaves your king in check, which is what makes stalemate positions possible.
Chase Ross
Chess is just edging in board game form.
Jaxon Gray
You're referring to the "no legal moves your king is not in check" stalemate. I'm aware this exists, but it is a very stupid rule. I'm also aware that some players actually deliberately exploit this rule to avoid a loss, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.
Joseph Reyes
>You're referring to the "no legal moves your king is not in check" stalemate. No, I'm referring to the fact that it's illegal to make a move if it would leave your king in check. In the pic I gave last post, black playing Kb6 is not a bad move, it's an illegal move. >I'm aware this exists, but it is a very stupid rule. No it isn't. Check out games like this. www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1848838 Black's draw is impossible without stalemate rules, and it's a very clever defense. >I'm also aware that some players actually deliberately exploit this rule to avoid a loss, but that doesn't make it any less stupid. That's a nice, circular argument. It's an exploit because it's a stupid rule, and it's a stupid rule because people exploit it.
Christopher Stewart
It's a dumb rule because it's a dumb rule. There's simply no justification for the rule from the outset. The fact that it can be useful to certain players in certain situations doesn't make it a good rule.
DESU, you SHOULD be able to put your king in check. Then the opponent should be able to capture the king and win the game. If capturing the king were the way to win the game as the OP suggests this would be the perfect solution. Instead, the game has to protect people from their own stupidity by making such a bad move illegal.
Justin Davis
What would be the point in moving the king that one last time? It's just another turn tacked onto the end of the game for no reason but "muh satisfaction."
This is bait.
Thomas Hughes
>It's a dumb rule because it's a dumb rule. There's simply no justification for the rule from the outset. Wrong. Consider a simple king and pawn endgame where you have the pawn in front of the king supporting it. If you eliminate the rule, that position is going to be an easy win as the K+P forces the other king backwards and eventually into "stuck or die", wheras with a stalemate rule, the defender can hold a draw. You really want to make K+P in all situations a win?
> The fact that it can be useful to certain players in certain situations doesn't make it a good rule. The fact that you don't understand chess theory at any level and are quite clear about this does in fact make you unqualified to discuss whether or not rules are good. >Instead, the game has to protect people from their own stupidity by making such a bad move illegal. Check out pic related. You really saying black should lose in this position? There is no legal move, so I guess he's just fucked, right?
Henry Martin
You see, regicide is a very, VERY dangerous thing. Killing a king is paramount with spitting in the face of God - they were the ultimate symbols of power and authority in Europe. While people warred all the time, royalty were almost always taken ransom and deposed by other kingdoms or forced into vassalage rather than killed. King-killers were oftentimes reviled, hated and despised by their contemporaries - for if they were willing to do it once, they were willing to do it again. This is why, when the French Revolution occurred and Napoleon rose to power, LITERALLY ALL OF EUROPE declared war on France. He was a king-killer and represented a threat to monarchies across Europe.
With this said, do you expect it to be any different in chess? The checkmate in chess is symbolic of the ransoming of kings; you do not take king because that would be regicide - the ultimate taboo. In such a time-honored game, to include such a thing would be nigh sacrilege.
John Cox
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. It's fucking retarded that you can back yourself into a corner and then NOT lose.
Landon Lewis
No, stalemates are a valid outcome, be it legally, militarily, or otherwise. Korea exists, for example.
Samuel Gonzalez
And you have nothing to support that but your own stupid opinion. Why the fuck should a king and pawn be always a win, but a king and bishop never be one? Why the fuck should endgame complexity be shattered down to almost nothing just to satisfy your autism?
Here's an idea. Write to FIDE with your rules suggestions. With any luck, we'll be actually able to see the spittle on the letter back from how hard they laughed at it. It will add absolutely nothing to any form of play for anyone but the rankest of beginners, since resignation is the usual way to end a game when it's hopeless anyway, but it will make all of endgame theory worthless and dumb down play by orders of magnitude.
Andrew Bell
Yes. When neither side has the ability to make a decisive victory, which is how it happens IRL as well. What does not happen IRL is for time to stand still because the losing side can't decide on an action to take.
Also, one more thing, an inconsistency in the rules that actually exist: Surrender is always an option, therefor the no legal moves stalemate is actually impossible based on the rules that already exist
Owen Allen
Okay, but it means if your opponent misplays and lets you take their king without having to restrct their options first that you don't autimatically win.
Carson Brooks
There is good reasons it's called capturing a piece, not killing it.
It's about outmanoeuvring the other guy to achieve victory, not slaughtering every piece on the board.
Luke Turner
Chinese Chess aka Xiangqi doesn't have this problem because they consider that if you're unable to make any legal moves left then you're considered "as good as dead." So I personally don't mind if such a change happened in regular Chess because there's still quite a few endgame scenarios that still end in a draw.
That's not to say draws cannot or do not happen but they are much harder to do so.
Parker Sullivan
That board state is literally impossible. The rook in the middle keeping the king from moving is on the wrong square. That middle space should be open to move into. So the bishop moves into the middle space, which opens a place for the knight to move into, which opens up the game for a black victory.
Carter Cook
Sorry, bishop in the middle. I need to go to bed...
Ryder Parker
But for how long? :^)
Evan Murphy
Unless they underpromoted a pawn.
Austin Garcia
Could there be a more racist and sexist game than chess?
Camden Ramirez
^this. It's more important to remember the historical connotations of the roots of chess. with this in mind, it's a much better "ending" to leave your opponent trapped at swordpoint, admitting your victory than to cut down your noble opponent needlessly for a fleeting satisfaction of the kill.
Logan Campbell
>killing a noble when you can capture and ransom him > a fucking king at that
Eli Price
>No, I'm referring to the fact that it's illegal to make a move if it would leave your king in check OK so, hypothetically, let's say there's no "you can't move your king in to check" rule. And you change the victory condition to "King capture = Win". What changes?
Obviously it becomes much harder to force a stalemate, but other than that it looks like the same game to me. Capable players still aren't going to move their king in to a check position if they can possible avoid it.
Gabriel King
>Could there be a more racist and sexist game than chess? Probably, yeah. Start a homebrew thread and see what you can come up with.
Andrew Butler
>OK so, hypothetically, let's say there's no "you can't move your king in to check" rule. And you change the victory condition to "King capture = Win". What changes? Enormous amount of endgame theory. King and pawn vs king positions where the pawn is in front of the friendly king, or where the pawn is in a rook file, are now all wins instead of draws; since the guy with the king can always march it up to the seventh, keep his king behind the pawn, and pin down the defending king, he can't both cover the queening square and stay safe, since sooner or later he'll get into this position and have to move himself into check. (See pic related) . That enormously lessens the amount of advantage you need to force a win and will mean less middlegame fireworks, more endgame grinding, as well as a greater advantage for white.
>the possibility of tie in chess is too ambiguous >being this autistic
Isaiah Anderson
Oh wow, when I drew that silly position, I didn't think anyone would actually construct a way to get into it. +1 internets to you user.
Gavin Rivera
The point of chess is to force the enemy to surrender - not to kill him. A live, incarcerated king is a hundred times more valuable than a dead one.
Alexander Hughes
If it makes you feel any better, the shorthand way to disqualify your opponent for an illegal move is to "capture" their king. (not actually a capture, or even a move, but you do go through the motions)
Aaron Campbell
>White wipes out all the black chess pieces >White king about to give black king the final blow >White queen stops him. >Don't do it. If you kill him you are not better than him.
Adam Ramirez
More like >White king about to give the final blow >White queen stops him >Bitch do you KNOW how much his kingdom will pay for the fucking ransom? Are you stupid?
Logan Powell
Chess is such a bad game to show that someone is smart. You can memorize every single possibility, move, and tactic and still be a fucking moron.
Gabriel Thompson
Out of curiosity, as someone who's not THAT into all the intricacies of chess, is there any reason to promote a pawn to anything other than a queen, or maybe a knight?
Owen Kelly
Promoting to a knight is valid in some cases but otherwise almost never
Owen Wright
You don't disqualify your opponent for that unless it's a blitz tournament. In standard time controls, it's just a 2 minute penalty to clock. There are a few instances where it's a good idea, but it's pretty rare. Pic related is a very (in)famous puzzle where you need to underpromote to a rook in order to force a win.
Daniel Cox
>You can memorize every single possibility, move, and tactic and still be a fucking moron. I CAN!?! Oh, damn... guys, I'll be right back.
Christopher Cooper
>Actually going to checkmate You're never going to make it
Easton Moore
I find that hard to believe, queen can do anything a rook can do besides castle which is moot by that point in game
Jace Carter
It's not legal to move your king into check.
Hudson Baker
Avoiding stalemate
Isaiah Davis
How about another new rule: should it provide strategic advantage, you can capture your own piece if you need to?
Lucas Rodriguez
You'd be wrong
c7, Rc6+ Kb5, Rd5+ Kb4, Rd4+ Kb3, Rd3+ Kc2 Rd4: Now, consider the position. If you move the king, black can get onto the c file and win the pawn and the game. If you queen immediately, then Rc4+ forces qxc4 and stalemate. If you rook the pawn, however, you can play:
c8=R, Ra4, Kb3, which forces black to either give up the rook or get mated after Rc1.
