Isn't chess weird?

Question

I've heard many a chess player say, "You can't capture a king; you just put it in check or checkmate." I mean, they're chess pieces. Why in the world would anybody feel the need to make a distinction?

Answer 1

The king is the head of state, or of the board. If you can place him in a position where he cannot move or defend himself why would you want to take any further action?

Answer 2

The difference is this: by the rules of Chess, if your King is in check, you must get your king out of check on your move. No move that does not get your King out of check can be made.

Also, you may not make a move that places your King in check.

So you can never take the King; by checkmating the King, you place your opponent in the position of not having a legal move while the King is under attack-- and that ends the game. You never have the opportunity to actually capture the King.

Answer 3

All of what you read here is correct when you checkmate the game is over and that is. Although in some speed chess rules the King can be captured!When this happens the person losing the King loses the game. This happens when the players king is in check and doesn't take it out of check or puts the king into check.

Answer 4

From FIDE Laws of chess "The objective of each player is to place the opponent`s king `under attack` in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have `checkmated` the opponent`s king and to have won the game. Leaving one`s own king under attack, exposing one`s own king to attack and also `capturing` the opponent`s king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game."

Checkmate is derived from Shah mat "the king is in mate when he is ambushed, at a loss, or abandoned to his fate."

Answer 5

Chess is very peculiar,especially in the sexual aspect.
The King is the most important piece; but the Queen is the most powerful.
The pawns are infantry, which most players conceive as little boys. But when they move down the board to the other end, they "grow up" and become a queen. How weird is that?

Answer 6

That's because the king is a very special piece. It is the one piece that defines the goal of the game. If you're checkmated; that's it. You lost. You can have three times as many pieces as your opponent, you still lost.
Unlike checkers, where it's all a matter of having more pieces on the board, chess is all about the King. If the king is lost, the game is lost and nothing else matters.

Answer 7

Every game needs rules which define how the game ends. For chess, the rule is built around the king. The good thing about that rule is that it leads to stalemate in certain situations (e.g., when the only pieces left are the two kings).

Answer 8

When the King is out of options to move without being in check then the game ends, there is no need to capture the piece.

~

Answer 9

A: "The knight can't move that way, that is a Bishop move."
B: "Of course a knight can move that way, it is just a piece of wood or plastic."

B's statement is correct, but he is no longer discussing the game of chess but the pieces.

It is like a football fan explaining the Left Guard can't catch a pass. I'm sure that person can, but he would be an ineligible receiver.

In any game there is a difference between reality and the rules agreed to to constrain behavior according to the game.

I can't tell who is stupider: the asker or the people who answered her state question and did not address her assumption.

Answer 10

When a player is in check, they must move their king, or move another piece to protect it. When a player is in checkmate, the game is over because there is no place for the king to go, thus, the other player wins. :]