Is check necessary?

Hi folks, these are just non-important thoughts to ramble about. 

Why are there the rules of "check" and "checkmate" in chess? Wouldn't it be more logical to say that the goal of the game is to capture the opponent's king? If someone is too hasty to note that their king could be taken on the next move, shouldn't they lose?

A few points: keep the rule that you can not castle through, or out of a direct attack of an enemy piece. If someone wants to castle into check, let them, and maybe they'll be wiser next game after their king is lost. 

In practical play it would never change a thing about how the game is played, except for stalemates. Doesn't it seem just that a player who has decimated all of his opponent's material— while retaining some minor piece power himself— and then succeeded in herding the enemy king into the corner, should be able to relish the victory of seeing the unfortunate king finally forced to step onto a square where he will meet his demise? 

Also, if a player battles all game long, and emerges with even the "small" advantage of a rook pawn, is that not still a superior showing to his opponent, and shouldn't he also be able to chase the king down the board, and finally make him sacrifice himself for the pawn? 

It would lower the percentage of draws in the game, and would allow more hard-earned "small" advantages to actually convert into endgame wins.

Again, during the course of the game it would never affect the play of serious players... they're going to know when their king is attacked. On the other hand, for beginner play, and for blitz play, the lack of a "deal with the check" rule, would just call for that much more attention and skill for those players; making them, if anything, better the sooner.

Of course, there is charm in tradition... and very rarely the possibility of stalemate can provide some brilliant tactical opportunities to pull off a draw. But on the whole... 

And wouldn't it be satisfying to take the king, whether by stealth or by force?

What does the world say?

So are you basically saying why can't we just capture the king? Because that ruins the whole point of chess...

no

Removing stalemate will affect the games of serious players dramatically.

It would be almost impossible to draw, and that is not a good thing to force a result from a game.

I wouldnt be in favor of changing the rules at this late date. But if I could go back in time and change one rule, this would be it. If your opponent puts his king on a square you can take it from, you should snap that piece off the board and end the game.

Otherwise what happens now? I dont know the rules exactly, but I think you have to get a TD over, have the TD reset the king, then set the clocks back, probably some time penalty or something...it seems like a ridiculous effort to make.

@jbomber: why does it ruin chess? I get it that it's more satisfying to force the king to his death instead of just snagging him because somebody missed that they were pinned... but really, as in the post, that would probably only be a factor in beginner and blitz chess.

@FancyKnight: agreed, it would affect the games... I was just suggesting that it would be more logical, and would require players to not be so flippant about "only" leaving their opponent a rook pawn ahead, or a knight with no pawns, etc.

@Zigwurst: I doubt draws would be rare, with agreed draws, repetition of position, and perpetual check. The thing that would change, is that when a person has an actual material advantage, that is going to help them win much more often.

@Ubik:  I'm not sure what you meant about resetting the clocks and all, but the post was assuming the theoretical circumstance that "capture the opponent's king" is the way to win chess.

And I'm not even saying I would push to change the rules... I'm just curious about people's thoughts.

Just take the king next time you win. What are they going to do about it?

Stalemate and otherwise "insufficient" material are the main issues...

Getting rid of stalemate would be an enormous change to endgame theory.

True that the only time it affects beginners is when they promote to 5 queens and fail to mate, but there are tons of endgames of every type (knight, bishop, rook, queen) that would be affected by getting rid of stalemate.

So actually it's really the opposite of what you said.  You'd hardly notice a difference in beginner games, while it would completely change professional / strong amateur games.

You can't force stalemate with just a knight.

Well, the whole goal of chess is checkmate. The ability to kill the king just seems to ruin checkmate. i mean if you're not paying attention a blunder could move your king into a bishops range? That doesn't seem right.

@macer: right, I spoke without checking myself on that one. The rook pawn and other situations still stand, though.

@waffllemaster:  "during the course of the game" meant before the endgame... where theoretically a beginner might leave their king hanging and lose, where a serious player never will. I'm in agreement that the stalemate factor would change the game for experts, not beginners, but I think it's food for thought that it might change it positively, in that if you can't keep your opponent from getting a certain material advantage, you might have to pay for it with a loss.

In some scholastic / some casual / some club / and some speed tournament games this is a rule.  You can capture the opponent's king and end the game.

So I guess your idea isn't that crazy

I don't see it changing for regular tournament play though... although like you said it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Does everybody really prefer stalemate (and its possibility) and the resulting draws, more than the concept of stronger material forcing the king to step onto a losing square, thus enjoying a win as the result of the advantage that was earned?

I enjoy a draws too! Stalemate, repetition, etc. Draws are cool

The drawing margin for some endgames is really big.  Bishop + wrong rook pawn vs lone king comes to mind.  Maybe others like B+R vs R and the R+P vs Q fortress.


Those may be annoying, but where to draw the line?  Does one pawn advantage really mean you outplayed your opponent?  Or the exchange (rook for knight or bishop)?  Often throughout the game material is sacrificed because we know it's not the number of pieces but how effective they are. 

And what about a positional superiority?  If all his pieces are passive is it really fair that the game ends in a draw even if we have the same number and type?  If my opponent can hardly move anything while I can move everything doesn't it mean I've outplayed him?


If you turned chess into more of a piece counting game I think it would be a big loss.  That you can even question the material balance in endgames where dynamic possibilities are so limited (i.e. you're not sacrificing for the purpose of mate) makes it a richer more enjoyable game in my opinion.

Waffllemaster, I don't think I disagree with things you are talking about, but I am not sure they specifically adressed my point. 

I completely concur that chess should not be a piece counting game and I enjoy the possibilities of sacrificing to achieve an end. But the thought remains... if you have extra material *that is strong enough* to force the other player to moving his king into danger (having no other pieces or unblocked pawns), it seems logical to me that the game could be played with "capturing the king" as the objective (i.e. no check rules), and that it would still reward a player with a win who has gained an advantage in the game... (I think I would have to say that a king with a rook pawn did indeed, if slightly, outplay the side with the lone king.)

Note that I did not suggest eliminating draws from other causes...

You could think of stalemate just like checkmate. In checkmate, the player's next theoretical move would place/leave his king in danger. Why shouldn't stalemate also be a loss, since the player's next theoretical move must place his king in danger?

I guess I don't really think of it as an unfairly ignored advantage except in those extreme cases where the stronger side has lots more material.  Something like king and two knights vs king.  At the other extreme, stalemates are used as a saving resource even when material is even.

In cases where there's lots of extra material I'm close to agreeing with you.  In cases where material is even I don't like the change.  There are many position in between, so again, where to draw the line?  I think in most cases it just makes the superior side work harder to convert the advantage and doesn't steal a win from a much stronger side.

As for the general logic of immobilizing but not being able to attack the enemy I see what you're saying.  If I had been making the rules from scratch I think I would have made stalemate a win (and as the game went though several rule changes over the years IIRC stalemate was one of them that changed).  But knowing the game as it is now, I prefer it this way.  Maybe because people like what they're accustom to, but also I think it adds depth.   

Don't worry, I'm not unhappy with chess as it is  I still think it's fairly logical that stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated side, and all that that would mean for endgame play. But this discussion was just for fun, I'm not expecting the game to change.