Why is it illegal to step into check?

Why not just let the opponent capture the king? Why do we have to announce check, either? I say we take the training wheels off.

"If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand!"

Why not let other pieces hop over pieces like knights?  Because that's how the game is played and the rules create a game rich in tactics and strategy.  They work so well no need to change them.

You're not required to announce check, and as a rule even casual players hardly ever announce check when playing at the club.  I've never heard check announced at a tournament.

 I read somewhere it's against the rules to announce check at tournaments causeit distracts the other players. Somebody on here even started a thread complaining cause the TD made him forfeit a game cause he kept announcing check. As for capturing the king, that makes sense to me too.

Why does White always move first? Why are bishops better than knights?  Why don't we abolish stalemate?   Why can't you promote a pawn to another king? Why is the King's Gambit better for Black? Why are all rook endgames drawn? Why is  Kasparov > Karpov > Fischer?

Because I said so

You don't have to call check. To answer your question, who knows? Apparently a lot of the rules are arbitrary (maybe all of them)

I've always played that a player who leaves their King in check in blitz games automatically loses after they hit the clock (because they made an illegal move) which is somewhat akin to capturing the King, I would think.

When I played tournaments, it was fine to quietly say, "check". I figured, because of the "touch-rule". So your opponent wouldn't accidentally touch a piece, then say, "Oh, I didn't know I was in check". It seemed like a courtesy. But, I don't know if the tournaments were different than the ones I watch and read about, since the winner only got a gift certificate for the chess shop we were at.

This rule is put in so that the game can last for longer and that people can enjoy chess more than getting a king taken by what was an 'unforced checkmate' in the chess opening if you even get what I'm trying to say...

you don't have to say check otb. and if its blitz, you can take the king if they don't notice

WHY is this thread hanging around so long?

How long do threads get to hang around?

That wasn't my point ... this one has many good answers, but enough is enough!  I do, however, find it amusing that this question comes from the OP of "Movie Reviews!"

ever play baseball...3 strikes and your out. ie, same reason.  

That's bowling. Baseball has touchdowns and hoops.

 Arctor, I guess you're trying to be humourous but why not be humourous and accurate.

White didnt always move first.

Whether bishops are better depends on the position.

We dont abolish stalemate because of tradition---without tradition chess would be as shaky as a fidler on the roof.

Whoever heard of a kingdom with two kings ?

The kings gambit is a figment of your imagination.

Why is Kasparov > Karpov > Fischer---because Kasparov and Karpov are standing on Fischer's shoulders.

That doesn't make them very much above ground level at this point.

Announcing check OTB in not only not required, it's in your best interests not to. Just on the chance your opponent doesn't notice the check, then spends time reflecting only to make an illegal move, you then inform him/her of the check and they are either forced to take back the move or use the piece they touched to get out of check. So all that reflection time is wasted which may result in a time advantage for you later. Also, it is not required to point out to your opponent they forgot to hit their clock, you can reflect on their time.

don't i feel like a fool, i said check a few times down the club the other night. they must be all laughing behind my back! 

I would prefer if the rule was to capture the king, but its too late to change it now.