Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 62

Thread: King taking

  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871

    King taking

    Can anyone justify to me the reason why we cannot take kings and why FIDE have now taken this 'rule' to the extreme?

    Is it 'tradition'? What is the reasoning behind not allowing king captures historically? Is it to stop 'cheapo checks' and people blundering their kings?

    You would not believe the trouble I have explaining to my students aged as young as 5 in some cases why you have to checkmate and not take the king.

    Child: 'I took his king and I won!'
    Me: "Actually, you're not supposed to take kings, you have to checkmate"
    Child: "But isn't the goal to get the king?"
    Me: "Yes, but you have to stop one move before you take him!"
    Child: "Why?"
    Me: "...."

    The easy way to implement checkmate is forcing the kids to say check every time so they don't GET their kings taken but even so.. it's a chore.

    I challenge any of you to justify why the law should stay and that kings cannot be taken. Proceed.
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  2. #2
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    Can anyone justify to me the reason why we cannot take kings and why FIDE have now taken this 'rule' to the extreme?
    Well actually king captures were never allowed because it is illegal to leave the king in check except in the blitz rules prior to 1992.
    Cjeckmate has always stated that the game ends when the king is in check and has no legal moves.
    This really isnt a difficult concept.
    All FIDE has done is made the laws consistent.
    If you cannot capture the king in a normal game (and you never could) then there is no reason why you should be able to in blitz.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    Is it 'tradition'? What is the reasoning behind not allowing king captures historically? Is it to stop 'cheapo checks' and people blundering their kings?

    You would not believe the trouble I have explaining to my students aged as young as 5 in some cases why you have to checkmate and not take the king.

    Child: 'I took his king and I won!'
    Me: "Actually, you're not supposed to take kings, you have to checkmate"
    Child: "But isn't the goal to get the king?"
    Me: "Yes, but you have to stop one move before you take him!"
    Child: "Why?"
    Me: "...."

    The easy way to implement checkmate is forcing the kids to say check every time so they don't GET their kings taken but even so.. it's a chore.

    I challenge any of you to justify why the law should stay and that kings cannot be taken. Proceed.
    You may as well ask why do queens move the way they do, or rooks, bishops and especially knights.

    Why cant you pick up the football in soccer.
    Why cant you you have forward passes in rugby league.

    The answer to all those questions are simple.
    Its the rules.
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos; 16-11-2004 at 10:36 PM.

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    That response is devoid of any imagination. Try asking 'why' to things a little more often, Bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    You may as well ask why do queens move the way they do, or rooks, bishops and especially knights.
    Bill, why do Queens move the way they do? To allow the game to progress more quickly - in the past queens moved only one square diagonally. It is like in Australian Rules where the new 'minimum 15 metre kick' rule allowed the game to progress more quickly.

    Why cant you pick up the football in soccer.
    Why cant you you have forward passes in rugby league.

    The answer to all those questions are simple.
    Its the rules.
    To pick up the ball in soccer and have forward passes in league would make them entirely different games, contravening the principles of the game. This does not and is only a small amendment.

    Still the question remains; WHY HAVE THIS RULE?
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  4. #4
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    That response is devoid of any imagination. Try asking 'why' to things a little more often, Bill.
    Actually the only one devoid of any imagination is you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    Bill, why do Queens move the way they do? To allow the game to progress more quickly - in the past queens moved only one square diagonally. It is like in Australian Rules where the new 'minimum 15 metre kick' rule allowed the game to progress more quickly.
    So what one could argue they are no fundamental changes to the original game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    To pick up the ball in soccer and have forward passes in league would make them entirely different games, contravening the principles of the game.
    So to do that would contravene the principles of the game.
    Well it just so happens that in chess a fundamental principle of the game is that the game ends when the king is checkmated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    This does not and is only a small amendment.
    Its not a small amendment at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    Still the question remains; WHY HAVE THIS RULE?
    You appear to have missed the point completely.
    As I said, capturing the king has always been a no no.
    The game ended with checkmate.
    Think about it logically for just one second.
    The movement of the pieces are all defined.
    An integral part of chess is that the king cannot move into check nor be left in check.
    In fact once checkmate occurs the king has no legal move.
    Hence there is no opportunity for the king to be captured because the player who king has been checkmated has no legal move.

    What are you going to propose, that the rule should be that the king cannot move into check nor be left in check except in the case where it has no other move. This makes absolutely no sense at all.
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos; 16-11-2004 at 11:08 PM. Reason: spelling correction

  5. #5
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    Still the question remains; WHY HAVE THIS RULE?
    Your earlier message is misleading. As Bill states the object of the game is not to capture the king - it never has been. The only question was how to handle the capture of the king in Blitz. I had an interpretation which is consistent with the current rules which says it is not illegal to take the king, however, neither does it wni the game. When the new rules come into force that interpretation will no longer be valid.

    That is why this rule was introduced to provide a consistent interpretation so that chess is played consistently around the world.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Your earlier message is misleading. As Bill states the object of the game is not to capture the king - it never has been. The only question was how to handle the capture of the king in Blitz. I had an interpretation which is consistent with the current rules which says it is not illegal to take the king, however, neither does it wni the game. When the new rules come into force that interpretation will no longer be valid.

    That is why this rule was introduced to provide a consistent interpretation so that chess is played consistently around the world.
    Forget the blitz rule for now, I want to get at the core of why king-taking is not a part of chess. It is obvious that chess is a dynamic and ever-evolving game and was originally played with different rules. Yet when establishing rules, why do you think the creators did not include king-taking?
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  7. #7
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    Forget the blitz rule for now, I want to get at the core of why king-taking is not a part of chess. It is obvious that chess is a dynamic and ever-evolving game and was originally played with different rules. Yet when establishing rules, why do you think the creators did not include king-taking?
    It would be superfluous. Why introduce a rule which would slow the game down?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #8
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Also checkmate comes from the Persian meaning the king is helpless or defeated and not that the king is dead.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Actually the only one devoid of any imagination is you.
    Wow, childish contradiction with no basis. Good show Billfred, I should have known a civilised chat wiht you is impossible.


    So what one could argue they are no fundamental changes to the original game.
    How would you define fundamental? The pieces used to move differently, so they are not fundamental aspects? What are, then?


    So to do that would contravene the principles of the game.
    Well it just so happens that in chess a fundamental principle of the game is that the game ends when the king is checkmated.
    Why is it though? Is it because it's a more fun way of winning? Because it gives the player an opportunity to effectively resign a move earlier? What are the reasons behind it?





    You appear to have missed the point completely.
    As I said, capturing the king has always been a no no.
    The game ended with checkmate.
    Think about it logically for just one second.
    The movement of the pieces are all defined.
    An integral part of chess is that the king cannot move into check nor be left in check.
    In fact once checkmate occurs the king has no legal move.
    Hence there is no opportunity for the king to be captured because the player who king has been checkmated has no legal move.
    Wrong - they are all defined at this moment but this was not always the case. Is it a case of legality then? Only because it contravenes allowable moves? Castling was not there since the beginning and neither was en passant. They used to be 'illegal' moves. Why must this remain but for the sake of tradition?

    What are you going to propose, that the rule should be that the king cannot move into check nor be left in check except in the case where it has no other move. This makes absolutely no sense at all.
    Imagine for a second this rule extended to leaving pieces en prise. What kind of game would we have then? Why is it only the king that is subject to these rules? They are not integral, they are dynamic.
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    It would be superfluous. Why introduce a rule which would slow the game down?
    On the contrary, it would speed it up greatly if one left their king en prise.
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Also checkmate comes from the Persian meaning the king is helpless or defeated and not that the king is dead.
    I considered that, however when one 'takes' a piece you are not killing it at all - you are capturing it. Taking the king would have the same meaning. Foiled by your own definition!
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  12. #12
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    Wow, childish contradiction with no basis. Good show Billfred, I should have known a civilised chat wiht you is impossible.
    Actually you were the first to be childish with your lack of imagination comment, instead of addressing the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    How would you define fundamental? The pieces used to move differently, so they are not fundamental aspects? What are, then?
    The aim of the game is fundamental.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    Why is it though? Is it because it's a more fun way of winning? Because it gives the player an opportunity to effectively resign a move earlier? What are the reasons behind it?
    Because thats the rules, just like you said its the rules that you cannot pickup the football in soccer or forward pass in rugby.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    Wrong - they are all defined at this moment but this was not always the case. Is it a case of legality then? Only because it contravenes allowable moves? Castling was not there since the beginning and neither was en passant. They used to be 'illegal' moves. Why must this remain but for the sake of tradition?
    It has nothing to do with tradition as I see it.
    Its to do with the aim of the game. which is to checkmate the king.
    irrespective of the changes in the moves of the pieces, it has never been allowable to remain in check or move into check. that is another fundamental aspect of the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    Imagine for a second this rule extended to leaving pieces en prise. What kind of game would we have then?
    Irrelevant because then you would not be playing chess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    Why is it only the king that is subject to these rules? They are not integral, they are dynamic.
    No they are not dymanic.
    An integral part of chess is that you win by checkmate and that a king can neither be left in check nor moved into check.
    With these integral rules in place there is no possibility for capturing the king.

  13. #13
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    On the contrary, it would speed it up greatly if one left their king en prise.
    I certainly would not look forward to such 'early' victories.

    But I misunderstood you position. I thought you were talking about taking the king in accordance with the normal rules. (IE consumating the checkmate with the actual capturing of the king on the next move).

    If you are talking about removing the whole concept of check, and being in check, then you are talking about a fundamental change in the rules. The importance of the king would be reduced. What about castling out of check? Why not? What about promoting to a new king on the move after your old king was captured? Why not?

    There are a lot of variants you could cook up, but they would be just that, variants. It you remove check from chess the game would be almost unrecognisable. (A bit like Blitz but more like losers or suicide).
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  14. #14
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    I certainly would not look forward to such 'early' victories.

    But I misunderstood you position. I thought you were talking about taking the king in accordance with the normal rules. (IE consumating the checkmate with the actual capturing of the king on the next move).
    Yes That is what I took him to be talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    If you are talking about removing the whole concept of check, and being in check, then you are talking about a fundamental change in the rules.
    He seems to fail to appreciate this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    The importance of the king would be reduced. What about castling out of check? Why not? What about promoting to a new king on the move after your old king was captured? Why not?

    There are a lot of variants you could cook up, but they would be just that, variants. It you remove check from chess the game would be almost unrecognisable. (A bit like Blitz but more like losers or suicide).
    Exactly.
    Its life Jim but not as we know it.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Actually you were the first to be childish with your lack of imagination comment, instead of addressing the issue.
    It wasn't my intention to be rude but it was true - you just jumped in and didn't consider where I was coming from, so I was disappointed. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.

    The aim of the game is fundamental.
    Taking the king may seem radical but going by what I've said about what is really 'capturing' I don't see why it couldn't become compatible with the fundamental aim of the game - it is still about 'capturing' the king simply in a different sense. I see no contradiction, only an equivocation depending how you look at it.

    Because thats the rules, just like you said its the rules that you cannot pickup the football in soccer or forward pass in rugby.
    See above justification for being compatible with the goal of chess.

    Irrelevant because then you would not be playing chess.
    Can I ask you then, the original Chess (Persian Chess) with the weak queen, the jumping bishops and the pawns that move one square - is that 'playing chess'?

    No they are not dymanic.
    An integral part of chess is that you win by checkmate and that a king can neither be left in check nor moved into check.
    With these integral rules in place there is no possibility for capturing the king.
    As above.
    Last edited by Alan Shore; 16-11-2004 at 11:45 PM.
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Untouchable King
    By Kehya in forum Puzzles and Problems
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-04-2007, 10:20 PM
  2. New Laws of Chess as of 1st July 2005
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 02-11-2005, 09:45 PM
  3. Tournament Instructions
    By Alan Shore in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 05-05-2005, 10:00 PM
  4. For King & Country
    By Cat in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-06-2004, 03:38 PM
  5. Untouchable King
    By Alex in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-01-2004, 05:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •