16 Oct 04
We play until checkmate (or stalemate, or resignation - but thats not the point), a checkmate is a position where the king wil be captured in the next move.
So why is the object of the game to checkmate instead of capturing the king, I mean its the same so why not apply the usual rules of capturing an enemy piece to the king.
Is it just to save a move ?
Is the background in old feudal society, where it might have been unhealthy to play a game where the object was to kill a king ?
Does Anybody know ? (care ?)
16 Oct 04
Originally posted by ScheelIf one is checkmated,one has no legal moves left,so the game ends there.Quite normal and logic,I'd say.
We play until checkmate (or stalemate, or resignation - but thats not the point), a checkmate is a position where the king wil be captured in the next move.
So why is the object of the game to checkmate instead of capturing the king, I mean its the same so why not apply the usual rules of capturing an enemy piece to the king.
Is it just to save a move ?
...[text shortened]... n unhealthy to play a game where the object was to kill a king ?
Does Anybody know ? (care ?)
In order to actually capture a king,there needs to be a change in the rules to allow a move while in check.Don't see how this could be a problem,but why would you want to change the rules?What's the point?
16 Oct 04
Originally posted by AThousandYoungRight!I didn't think of that.If you change the rules to allow a king to be in check,there's no more stalemate possible!
The checkmate rule allows for stalemate. That's the only difference I can see if players have sufficient skill.
I think it would be cooler if you could take the King.
No,no,no,we can't have that.