Needed Rule Change: Allow Players to Take The King

Let it be the way it is now. It's more epic.

Can you take the king in Blitz ?

if you are playing stupid people you might be able to convince them you can

This was brought up recently and discussed in a different thread. The negative ways in which the game are significantly altered by having the king captured instead of checkmated were given there:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-would-chess-be-different-if

It's illegal to move the king into check, and therefore impossible to actively hang your king. If the king is in check, it's illegal to make any move that doesn't get him out of check. Therefore, according to this proposed change, every checkmate position would become a stalemate, as the mated player would have no legal moves.

I think KxK is legal in blitz.

So I could see making this change, for live chess only, and only for blitz or quick.

I have always thought the same thing. There was a thread somewhere on the site that asked 'if you could change on rule, what would it be,' and many people answered with this. Instead of ending with the capture of the King and moving into check being a game-ending blunder, someone decided to end the game with checkmate and simply 'not allow' moving into check. This seems arbitrary to me and gives rise to the one rule that I think chess could do without: stalemate. Someone (I think it was Reb) pointed out that stalemate is how every checkers game is won. It seems crazy that trapping the King beyond hope would somehow mean splitting the point.

The object of the game is to checkmate the king, if you capture the king and remove him from the board then the object is lost, and there would'nt be any reason to play. Besides; If you could just take the king, the game would be over anyway, since the opponent has lost whats he's been defending. The game would have no primary objective, thus, making it no better than checkers. Its the rules of the game that make it great.  

Yes, this is how we play our quick games at club.

I don't see why it should be this way for longer time controls, though. Players are allowed to blunder in every other way.

idosheepallnight,

Why would you take time controls so seriously in a game that is all about capturing the Kings? If my time ran out but you didn't take my King, then you failed to accomplish the objective of your theorized game, which is to deliver the final blow to my King. Therefore, the game should be a draw because both men are left standing.

And yes, in informal games of blitz, you are allowed to "King" your opponent. It would be awkward in a blitz G/5 to inform your opponent that he or she made an illegal move and add 2 minutes to your clock. If you were playing in a tournament, then this is what would happen.

I'd be interesting to find a game where one player is really short on time, dashing off a dozen moves in the final minute of time he has on the clock, and he finally plays the checkmating move with 0:01 seconds remaining on his clock. And his opponent moves. And as he swoops in to take his opponent's King and hurries back to hit his clock, he finds that it has expired to 0:00 :(

I mean, come on, how often is this going to happen? Like maybe 1/a billion games.

Play checkers, you can take as many kings as your opponent has.  Leave chess alone.

The whole point of chess, as the old story goes, is that the king CANNOT be harmed; rather one side wins when the king surrenders; i.e. when the king is checkmated. It would be contrary to the tradition of chess to enable king captures in normal games. That said, I don't believe calling checks is mandatory in blitz games, where king captures are legal.

blasphemy!!!!!!!!! 

Youngdude the word checkmate means "dead king" so your whole dont harm the king thing is bogus.

Excellent point.  So those rules would have to be changed as well.  This would then eliminate the rule making stalemate a possibility, so a whole piece of chess strategy would be eliminated.  I have no problems with the rules the way they are and have been.  My problem is learning to play well within the rules that already exist!

Maybe if this was made an option, then people we be happier. When I go to chess tournaments with my team; in the skittles room we often play bughouse where it's more of a black ops mission to take the king.(Really exciting) If only chess.com made bughouse tournaments, with 1-6 min. clocks.(hint.hint.)

"needed" rule change, the thread is called. "needed."

ha!

Do you have no morals, it was set up just take control and make the king feel bad not make him feel like crap

What's needed is a rule that only those that have truly mastered the game should be lsitened to when a drastic rules change is offered.

The rest of the crowd: You don't know enough to be taken seriously on this subject.

For the beginners who think they can improve a game they really don't understand: Lol.

Most blitz chess rules already clearly state that any illegal move ends the game due to the dificulty of trying to put the time wasted back on the clock.  Capturing the opponents king clearly falls into this category, if they fail to notice check and move another piece, or even move themselves into check.  I dont believe much of an argument could be made however for longer time control games since the inevitable king capture is essentialy an unnecessary final move. Perhaps, if both players are in serious time trouble the rules could revert to "Blitz Rules". Even considering this option I dont believe we will, or even ever should, see the end of the epic "Checkmate"!