Why don't you make a game then where instead of ending it continues for two more pointless moves?
Checkmate is dumb
Sort:
Oldest
thanks for the ab workout man really, that was hilarious.
In the combat system used during the time when chess was invented and leading up through most of the combat systems until around the ninteenth century, the leaders of the armies were not killed. They were allowed to be "ransomed" or other things like that. Killing one was dishonorable. So the king is forced to surrender and has no choice but to surrender and retreat.
Moses2792796 wrote:
Whenever I've played OTB blitz capturing the king has been allowed, so if you accidentally move into check and your opponent spots it you lose. I think this should be an option for blitz on this site tbh.
Na, it's banned by FIDE, and they would have to change how the legal moves system functions to implement it here. Makes no sense to do so.
The way I see it is that checkmate itself is the finish line. Putting the king into check where he doesn't have any legal moves is enough of a win for me.
N2UHC wrote:
The way I see it is that checkmate itself is the finish line. Putting the king into check where he doesn't have any legal moves is enough of a win for me.
Putting the king into check where he doesn't have any legal moves....that is the definition of "checkmate".
Feb 12, 2013
0
#8
Gimpalersan wrote:
In the combat system used during the time when chess was invented and leading up through most of the combat systems until around the ninteenth century, the leaders of the armies were not killed. They were allowed to be "ransomed"...
OK... OK... so how about, when we get the enemy King cornered, we can say to the opponent "Gimme five bucks, or the big guy gets it!"
At my level of play (which isn't that high) most games never reach checkmate. Because of the skill level once someone notices they have a decisive disadvantage they resign. At the highest levels this is also true. So what would the point of changing the rule be? Most games never reach checkmate anyways except between low level players.
And before people start yelling (yes i can hear it already) "Don't allow resigning then!!!" I'm not going to waste my time with 20 more moves of a completely lost game. I have better things to do.
you think that the rules should be catered towards the GOOD players??? No wonder chess suffers from a publicity problem c:
That's not my point, i apologize if you took it that way. What I'm trying to say is with all the option of resigning used so incredibly often, besides at the very bottom level of play. A rule as suggested would be pointless, and rewriting all the other ones to avoid confusion would be a waste of time.
you can't deny my claim and then reaffirm it in the same paragraph! I aint that nearsighted!
no wait, farsighted.
I WEAR GLASSES AND CANNOT SEE THINGS WITHOUT THEM
BabyRhinoRainbow wrote:
you can't deny my claim and then reaffirm it in the same paragraph! I aint that nearsighted!
people at the "very bottom level of play" will be out of that level within a couple months. So again. No point.
but by "the very bottom level of play" you actually mean 93% of the people in the world who play chess.
You have edited your post! I am quitting. Here is a documentary about 70 year old women who still have sex: http://www.cultureunplugged.com/documentary/watch-online/play/10810/Still-Doing-It--The-Intimate-Lives-of-Women-Over-65
Conversly, if someone were to miss checkmate, would the game go on?
So, what's the deal with checkmate? Imagine how much better the game of chess would be if instead of winning by checkmate, you win by killing the king. Oh, but that's what checkmate is you say? No, its not. Who here has actually killed the king in a game of chess? Nobody. I play this arduous game of tedium that lasts hours and requires intense focus and concentration, and when I'm finally on the verge of killing that smug aristrocrat, and redeeming all the time I've poured into the game, it ends with the king on the verge of immenent death, but the inevitable act is never played out. It's like he's silently mocking me after I've systematically decimated his entire kingdom, but he gets to live? We've all been robbed of what is rightfully ours. This would be like a marathon runner on the verge of winning the gruling 26.2 mile race, only to find that he doesn't actually get to cross the finish line through the tape. Nope, the race stops right before he gets there and he just has to imagine crossing the finish line. What kind of a runner would put up with this kind of nonsense? I therefore propose that the rules of chess be changed to the simple and incredibly satisfying "kill the enemy king".