I'm not talking about the technical rules of legal moves when your king is checked. I'm talking about when there's checkmate and the victor and the loser are set in stone. Why can't I capture the king at that point? I can understand why you can't do so with a resignation because your pieces likely aren't near the king.
because it's not your turn. you can't move another piece until the mated player moves a piece, and they have no legal moves because they're in checkmate.
Announcing when the enemy's king is in danger is a mistake. We should stop telling people when they're in check, shouldn't correct each other if they put their king into check, and you win by taking their king
announcing when the enemy's king is in danger is a mistake. both kings must be made to understand that they are both the enemy of the people, and they are always in danger! the people win then we unite to overthrow the useless monarchies on either side of this stupid war, clear out the priesthood and military order that impose this class hierarchy upon us, and take the castles as our own! we shall work the land together for the benefit of all!
If the pawns just all turned around, they could win the game instantly!
They would have to be slightly more organized than that, otherwise they would just be defeated
Well, if they went first, then it's a quick coup. If not, they should be able to turn into enough queens, I think.
it was a joke about organized labor and the working class not currently being ready for the revolution
Liberalism. When I am grandmaster I will guillotine the kings of my opponents.
I demand 1945 Berlin rules. If there’s a stalemate, the not-loser’s king commits suicide by getting knocked over by the loser. If he’s checkmated, the winner executes him by knocking the loser’s king over
the king a weak lil shit who can barely move, meanwhile the queen jumping all over the damn place.
this reminds me of the hilarious rule in xiangqi where kings cant have direct line of sight on each other
probably implemented to prevent draws but in reality implies that the kings are anime characters that lounge around in their forts until they spot a worthy opponent, at which point saitamas theme starts playing and they rohan charge across the battlefield and gib their counterpart in a single blow
you could originally capture the king in the predecessor sanskrit game but that would result in a lot pre-mature endings where the games felt unfinished especially since the king could escape the previous move. that's why when it was brought into iran a rule was added so that you cannot capture the king, you have to warn your opponent that their king is in danger (kish or check) and until they get their king out of danger you cannot move. if regardless of whatever you did, your king would be captured the next turn then you and your opponent wouldn't have any legal moves (kishmat or checkmate) and that's game over.
so not breaking that convention doesn't really need a reason since it's basically a wasted and unnecessary move. it would be more noteworthy if you broke that convention since you are making a point about being defeated or fighting until your last breath or whatever.
also consider this was considered to be a diplomatic game, played between heads of states. if you just capture their king (basically killing them in game) even though it's not necessary, that would send all kinds of wrong signals.
if there's any other possible reason then i don't know about it.
I like the rule because of its diplomatic implications. Basically it says "you're in a shit position, but I'll still let you negotiate your position."
On a serious note, I think it's just because the only benefit of that would be to gloat about your victory. The outcome is definitively decided once checkmate happens, so the rest is theatre, rather than game.
My complaint is why 'stalemate' is a thing. If I'm clearly winning and your king can't go anywhere without facing certain death, how the frick is that a draw?!
Well the game is already over, so I guess you can do whatever you like with the pieces because it doesn’t matter.
Dunno but it always seems like royals were always capturing and never killing each other in wars?? Like I don't know why Napoleon didn't just kill Francis II after the nth fucking war he started.
I don't know the explanation as late as the 19th century when states were large and consolidared, but when Europe was a bunch of statelets I'm pretty sure nobility was captured and held for ransom.
We should be allowed to steal the opponent's king piece and demand money for it
Whenever I play mountain blade, all the other nobles think I'm a bastard for immediately killing any noble who surrenders. But it allows me to get closer to strategic victory, and also the nobles have a habit of escaping before a ransom comes in
One THEORY I've heard from some college professor I had back in the day, chess originates from ancient Iran and in that place and time, the "King" was often more a symbolic figure and who was really in charge was whatever clan controlled him. Basically some powerful tribe would hold the king as a gilded hostage who they could "politely ask" him to issue royal decrees on their behalf. So really when you win in chess you're taking the king hostage.
Again this was a theory a kinda quack professor of mine had. Don't take it as fact.
ehhh i dont think sasanian iran was particularly "figurehead-y", at least any more than the 'normal' amount you get in monarchies.
unless prof was talking about abbassids and beyond, they did get freaky with it in medieval times between caliphs, sultans, shahs, and atabegs
Yeah like I said the dude was a bit of a quack. Interesting quack but a quack.
You can, you're just being socially pressured not to.
If you have the guts, you absolutely can just take the king. What are they gonna do? You have the king.
Because chess is an illusion. There is no end. There is only the beginning
