Why isn’t the aim of chess to take the opponents king? Checkmate would still be winning, but the concept of “check” is weird.... Imagine the bullet tricks of just taking someone’s king, it would make so much more sense! The only reason checkmate is a thing is because you will always be able to take the king no matter what your opponent does. So why not take the king!?!
yeah lets say we check them and they don't see it and they do something else so then you can say gg and win without so many complicated checkmates
That's how we used to play OTB blitz. Leave a King in check, and the other player takes the King and wins.
Of course, any illegal move would immediately be a loss. But we don't have the ability to make illegal moves in online chess. Hence, you cannot leave your King in check.
Of course, any illegal move would immediately be a loss. But we don't have the ability to make illegal moves in online chess. Hence, you cannot leave your King in check.
maybe a variant at least??
@WhereDidIPutThatPawn said in #1:
> Why isn’t the aim of chess to take the opponents king? Checkmate would still be winning, but the concept of “check” is weird.... Imagine the bullet tricks of just taking someone’s king, it would make so much more sense! The only reason checkmate is a thing is because you will always be able to take the king no matter what your opponent does. So why not take the king!?!
I completely agree and I’d begun to think I was the only person who believed this. Capturing the king should end the game, not checkmate.
From this, I also believe that stalemate shouldn’t be a thing. That should be a type of zugzwang. If you’re not in check but have no legal moves, you have to move your king into check.
> Why isn’t the aim of chess to take the opponents king? Checkmate would still be winning, but the concept of “check” is weird.... Imagine the bullet tricks of just taking someone’s king, it would make so much more sense! The only reason checkmate is a thing is because you will always be able to take the king no matter what your opponent does. So why not take the king!?!
I completely agree and I’d begun to think I was the only person who believed this. Capturing the king should end the game, not checkmate.
From this, I also believe that stalemate shouldn’t be a thing. That should be a type of zugzwang. If you’re not in check but have no legal moves, you have to move your king into check.
One of the few grumbles I have with Lichess over the bigger site is the sharp "crack" sound you get when giving check is not replicated at all here. On Lichess the move sound is the same for giving check as any other move.
@WhereDidIPutThatPawn said in #1:
> Why isn’t the aim of chess to take the opponents king? Checkmate would still be winning, but the concept of “check” is weird.... Imagine the bullet tricks of just taking someone’s king, it would make so much more sense! The only reason checkmate is a thing is because you will always be able to take the king no matter what your opponent does. So why not take the king!?!
Play Antichess If ur raged Without taking King LOL..
> Why isn’t the aim of chess to take the opponents king? Checkmate would still be winning, but the concept of “check” is weird.... Imagine the bullet tricks of just taking someone’s king, it would make so much more sense! The only reason checkmate is a thing is because you will always be able to take the king no matter what your opponent does. So why not take the king!?!
Play Antichess If ur raged Without taking King LOL..
I competely disagree with this topic. So , if checkmating is such hard and hatred thing the our brain must work hard to do it which is a good thing. Many, or , rather most people choose chess to increase logical thinking and focus
CHECKMATE IS NOT STUPID.
I am 'checking' over you. Can't escape, mate.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.