Why does that distinction need to be made?
Checkmate immidiately ends the game and that is in the rules. As is the rule that kings can not move into or through an attacked square. The idea that the king can't be captured flows logically from those rules.
FIDE Laws of Chess are very specific about this:
3.9 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.
Had a discussion about this topic some time back and there was an interesting hypothesis. The king is never actually captured (killed) to abate the idea of killing live monarchs/rulers.
Not sure if this has any truth whatsoever. Food for thought, though.
In Blitz, it's not uncommon to remove the King from the board. It's in the rules for Blitz.
Of course, in online games there is no need for this rule because the computer acts as a flawless arbiter that never allows illegal moves.
In OTB games, the arbiter cannot always be present. Therefore, we have the king capture rule to prove that your opponent left his king in check.
Try this one:
White plays Bg2+ and announces mate. Black smiles, says "You've mated YOURSELF", and plays d5 discovered check in reply.
Checkmate?
White replies by capturing the Pawn en passent. Black says "Wait!... you can't do that! You are in check!"
White says "No... your Pawn never reached d5 to block my check. It was captured en passent while moving across the d6 square. So you can't check me... you are in check already. Mate next move."
Who wins the game?
Who wins the game?
That's funny! I love it, but obviously black wins the game because white has nowhere to move and no way to block the check from blacks bishop.
Who wins the game?
That's funny! I love it, but obviously black wins the game because white has nowhere to move and no way to block the check from blacks bishop.
Correct. White's claim that "the Pawn never reached d5 to block the check" is incorrect.
According to the rules of chess, a move is complete when the moving player takes his hand off the piece... so the Pawn did indeed reach d5, blocking the check.
the solution to the op s question is being discussed by FIDE i believe
expect the introduction of the suicide king who aims to get from e1 to g5 asap
#7 is a really strange argument. Of course many casual players will lack a proper knowledge of the rules. You can't find them exposed on the streets or in TV advertisements for example, but they are stated loud and clear for anyone really interested. Or should we assume everybody knows what is off side the first time they kick a football?
Who wins the game?
That's funny! I love it, but obviously black wins the game because white has nowhere to move and no way to block the check from blacks bishop.
Correct. White's claim that "the Pawn never reached d5 to block the check" is incorrect.
According to the rules of chess, a move is complete when the moving player takes his hand off the piece... so the Pawn did indeed reach d5, blocking the check.
En passant is a choice the player makes after the pawn move has been made and has nothing to do with the initial movement of the pawn lol
This is surely the chess rule that I've always found the most intriguing.
My hypothesis is that the game did use to end when the king was captured at first, since that would be the most intuitive and basic version, but any player who knows what they're doing would have no reason to leave the king in danger anyway. So the addition of this rule would prevent some really anti-climatic blunder endings (worse than blundering a mate in one), while not really changing the games of those who had at least a bit of experience.
When you think about it, though, those tournaments in which one single illegal move makes you lose still play by that (hypothetical) old rule.
King really needs to make some space. He only has g4 and g3 and both of them are protected.
In chess when a piece is captured it means that the captured piece is removed from that square and replaced by the attacking piece. This cannot be done with the King, therefore the king cannot be captured!
In Checkmate is the King removed from the square and replaced by attacking piece? No of course not. What really happens in Checkmate? The King is in Check with no way to get out, this does not mean a capture in chess terms, but does mean the end of the game. Therefore the King cannot be Captured!
Is there any book out there that says that the King CANNOT BE CAPTURED?
I have seen people play what I call their version of chess which includes taking out the King and continuing the game. Clearly they don't know the rules of the game. When I tell them that the King cannot be Captured in chess they always look at me in surprise.
Wikipedia does use the word Capture to explain the King piece. It says "the threat of Capture" a statement that could easily confuse people that don't know chess. If Wikipedia had used the words "The King Cannot be Captured " then it would make more sense to say "the threat of capture".