It doesn't make sense to me that moving into check is not allowed in chess. Why not let the player decide. If he fails to see, the king will be captured and the game is over. If this isn't allowed, why should a player be allowed to move into a position that is mate in 3? I can't logically integrate this, why is it illegal?
Also, is there a rule that says that you must say check if the king is under attack?
Originally posted by exigentskyI can't answer your first question. That's just part of the rules of the game. I too see no reason for it, as any good players would be able to see it.
It doesn't make sense to me that moving into check is not allowed in chess. Why not let the player decide. If he fails to see, the king will be captured and the game is over. If this isn't allowed, why should a player be allowed to move into a position that is mate in 3? I can't logically integrate this, why is it illegal?
Also, is there a rule that says that you must say check if the king is under attack?
There is no rule that you must say "check" OTB. However, if you opponent fails get his king out of check, it's an illegal move, and time will usually be subtracted from his clock.
From my understanding (though limited i assure you) I was under the impression that the king is never actually captured, it is the concept of inevitable capture that is defined as checkmate. I know there are instances (such as stalemate) that do not directly involve the capture of the king and these are concluded as a draw due to no one being able to move into a square that would result in a check or mate. The idea of checkmate is to have your opponents king in a position where all 8 squares around it are either under attack or blocked off (be it by your pieces or opponents pieces) I would compare it to surrounding a king in a battle, that king cannot escape the oncoming attack and he is forced to give up or checkmate. No king in battle would voluntarily put himself into a position when an enemy could kill him with one move. That is what i gather. Let me know if I am barkin up the wrong tree.
Originally posted by irishhebrew82Yes, checkmate is a position in which the king will inevitably be captured. Thus, if the king moves into check and it is my move, he will be inevitably captured on my next move. When I actually capture the king, I am a step ahead of checkmate 😉 , after all, that's what would follow checkmate. But of course, we all know that so no one plays farther.
From my understanding (though limited i assure you) I was under the impression that the king is never actually captured, it is the concept of inevitable capture that is defined as checkmate. I know there are instances (such as stalemate) that do not directly involve the capture of the king and these are concluded as a draw due to no one being able to ...[text shortened]... d kill him with one move. That is what i gather. Let me know if I am barkin up the wrong tree.
As for the king never willingly putting himself in danger, I don't think this is enough. Just as the person playing the game, the king may not always realize he is putting himself in danger.
If the king were allowed to move into check, then he would thusly be allowed to move through check by way of castling. This would undo a sizeable portion of known attacking strategy...not good.
More importantly, if you are an inept attacker and leave your opponent in a stalemated position, then you do not deserve the win that would be inevitable if he/she were forced to move.
But all that aside, asking why that is a rule is like asking why white moves first, or why we set the pieces up in a particular order...because those simply ARE the rules.
Originally posted by BLReidThat's not true at all. If you castled through check, it would be a legal move, but you would automatically lose the game since your king would be captured immediately just like in en passant. I'm not planning on revising that.
If the king were allowed to move into check, then he would thusly be allowed to move through check by way of castling. This would undo a sizeable portion of known attacking strategy...not good.
More importantly, if you are an inept attacker and leave your opponent in a stalemated position, then you do not deserve the win that would be inevitable if he/she ...[text shortened]... s first, or why we set the pieces up in a particular order...because those simply ARE the rules.
Stalemate is not only the result of inept attackers and in fact, stalemate doesn't make much sense either. Sure, your opponent has no legal moves if you stalemate him, so what, then he should be stuck and you should get another turn, just like in checkers and real life. Then, you would probably be able to win with your extra turns. This would also eliminate many draws, but not all of course. For example a king and pawn game would still be a draw.
Also, rules must have logic. They don't exist simply to make limits for the sake of it, they exist because experience has shown that they are necessary. Questioning rules is sensible and should be encouraged.
Originally posted by zebanoThat's true for any mate. Even mate in 1, and in 2 are only valid if you act upon them. And of course, if the king moved into check and you missed it, you didn't prove anything. The game would continue until taking the king is impossible or you realize that you can capture the king and win the game. (like a mate but a move ahead)
BLReid posted some excellent answeres but I wanted to add that mate in 3 is not the same thing because your opponent must prove that they see and can execute the mating attack.
Originally posted by exigentskyHowever there is a big differnce between seeing a forced mate in 3 and seeing that their King is en prix.
That's true for any mate. Even mate in 1, and in 2 are only valid if you act upon them. And of course, if the king moved into check and you missed it, you didn't prove anything. The game would continue until taking the king is impossible or you realize that you can capture the king and win the game. (like a mate but a move ahead)
Originally posted by exigentskyNot if the K ended up on a square where it was not in check (say moving from e1 to g1, with the check being given on f1).
[b]That's not true at all. If you castled through check, it would be a legal move, but you would automatically lose the game since your king would be captured immediately just like in en passant. I'm not planning on revising that.
It doesn't matter because it would be just like en passant. If you pass through an attack, you would be captured even if you normally endup in a different place. So thus, the king would be captured by the queen or whatever attacking piece exactly on the spot where it would have passed through check. This is of course, only valid for the move immediately following castling. Afterwards, the offer is gone.
Originally posted by exigentskyWhy? When another piece passes through a square on which it could be captured, you don't get the choice of taking ti where it has passed through. I thought people were suggesting it would just be like taking another piece. You would not be able to capture the K on the basis it moved through an attacked square.
It doesn't matter because it would be just like en passant. If you pass through an attack, you would be captured even if you normally endup in a different place. So thus, the king would be captured by the queen or whatever attacking piece exactly on the spot where it would have passed through check. This is of course, unless he misses it and then the offer is no longer valid.
Originally posted by zebanoSure there's a difference, but only in degree. The same idea applies. You still have to prove you saw it, it's true for a mate in 1 and it's true for capturing an undefended piece. That one or the other is more difficult is inconsequential, the whole idea is that you have to prove that your opponent messed up and you know how to take advantage of it.
However there is a big differnce between seeing a forced mate in 3 and seeing that their King is en prix.
We may simply comment that the king can not be moved into check because those are the rules of Chess.
It is a self-serving end, but hardly circular reasoning.
IN chess, the king can not be put into check. A stalemate occurs when no moves other than those putting the king in check exist while the king is not in check. Your logic would be true if chess is usually viewed through the context of real life. This is not the case; however, chess is viewed only in the context of the game of chess.
If you REALLY wnated to you could submit your suggestion to the FIDE. Though the rules really haven't changed in a long time, they COULD be changed by FIDE, just as the April fool's joke played by ChessBase was a submission of a "retractor" move that would allow a played to take back his last move.