Chess

1923 readers

2 users here now

Play chess on-line

FIDE Rankings

September 2023

#	Player	Country	Elo
1	Magnus Carlsen	🇳🇴	2839
2	Fabiano Caruana	🇺🇸	2786
3	Hikaru Nakamura	🇺🇸	2780
4	Ding Liren 🏆	🇨🇳	2780
5	Alireza Firouzja	🇫🇷	2777
6	Ian Nepomniachtchi	🇷🇺	2771
7	Anish Giri	🇳🇱	2760
8	Gukesh D	🇮🇳	2758
9	Viswanathan Anand	🇮🇳	2754
10	Wesley So	🇺🇸	2753

Tournaments

Speed Chess Championship 2023

September 4 - September 22

Check also

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Change my mind: One should be allowed to put their own king into check, and one should be allowed to make moves that leave their king in check (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It would function simply: If a player puts their king into check on their own move, if the opponent sees it, they can capture the king on their turn either by physically taking out the king or announcing checkmate on their turn. If the opponent doesn’t see it, the game continues as normal. Likewise, if the opponent puts the king into check, both players can respond on their turn if they notice it, or it's simply a blundered opportunity.

The classical checkmate ending can be seen as an honorable ending, wherein the player effectively resigns/surrenders, or the player can be dishonorable by drawing out the game by making one more move. I understand the redundancy of this type of ending, but it would add more personable nuance to the game.

This idea can also be extended to stalemates: The only true stalemate would be one where a capturing of the king will not occur in a finite number of moves, e.g. move repetitions, or two sole kings on the board. A stalemate by trapping the king, ie the king has no alternative moves that wouldn’t put it into checkmate, should be a victory rather than a draw — the king would be forced to make a move into check, then the opponent would capture the king on their move if they notice the possibility.

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 0 points 20 hours ago

What's stopping you from doing that anyways? If your opponent doesn't see it, they don't see it

[–] [email protected] 0 points 23 hours ago

I mean, that's kinda how it works when playing 1 on 1 with no audience and one player misses moving into check, and the opponent misses too.

And there's plenty of people that play with no check at all. You don't have to announce it, it's on the player to detect and counter.

I prefer check being absent in casual, friendly games unless they're so friendly that you're also notifying the other player of missed opportunities or mistakes. Which is, imo, the optimum way to play with friends that aren't at the same skill level, or are very closely matched to the point that the game is going to drag on when there's limited time to play.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

Chess is a war game, so allowing political assassinations or allowing the King to die just doesn't make any sense. Assassination of the King would just mean that the next in line becomes the new King. Only the King can surrender. So in order to force an end to the war you need to trap the King. Killing the King does not end the war, it just creates a new King.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

A lot of chess variants do this, like Duck Chess and Drawback Chess. It's especially useful if there's a possibility of something outside the core chess rules (e.g. the duck or a player's drawback) that could actually stop them from taking the king.

One extra detail to be aware of if you want to play this way: you should (or should at least consider) add in "castling en passant", where a piece landing on the space a king left on the turn after it castles, or on the space the king passed through in the act of castling, also counts as capturing the king.