Chess: Why Can't The King Be Removed From The Board?

[Hoopy_Frood]

@Chronos

But a game ending in stalemate is extremely rare, anyway, and one might argue that if it does, it ought to be a win for the player in the superior position anyway.

Why? If you have the superior position and allow the inferior position to bring the game to a stalemate you deserve to draw.

For example, there are reasons that not all pawns become queens. One of them is that sometimes you want to promote to a less powerful piece to avoid a stalemate.

[Pasta]

@Chronos

It’s worth noting that almost every variant on chess, even variants as trivial as shorter time constraints, does away with the rule, and allows ending your turn in check (which results in a loss if your opponent notices and takes advantage of it).

I think you are hinting at blitz chess’s rule differences, but this isn’t right. In blitz chess, as with classical chess, it is illegal to put or leave your king in check. It’s also illegal to do many other things. It’s illegal to accidentally move a bishop from a light square to a dark square, or to capture en passant two turns after the opportunity, or to play Nf3-to-h5, or to castle incorrectly. But, since it’s blitz and people are playing quickly, mistakes happen. And the rule in blitz is that any illegal move is an immediate loss if the other player calls it out. Leaving your king in check is one type of illegal move that results in a loss, but far from the only one. If the opponent doesn’t notice the illegal move, you play on. So, if you castle to the wrong square or move the knight incorrectly (say) and your opponent proceeds to make their next move anyway, your illegal move stands as played, in the spirit of scrappy blitz chess. You wouldn’t say, though, that blitz chess “allows” incorrect castling or funky knight moves.

(To be sure, one way to point out an illegal move that leaves a king in check is to “capture” the king, but that’s just a nifty way to signal that type of illegal move. You could also just say “Sorry, bub, you lose,” and stop the clocks.)

But a game ending in stalemate is extremely rare, anyway.

Games ending in stalemate are not only common but they define a huge space of endgame play. You may not play all the way to the stalemate, but it’s critically there in the potential move tree. If GothamChess (linked in the OP) says he’s in favor of capturing the king, I have to assume he said that either in a passing conversation or means to do it in a way to preserve stalemate.

Fundamental KP vs K endgames like this one or like this one (white to move) would change from a draw to a win for white in the proposed rule change. And, working backwards, other end games like RPK vs RK that are drawable by transitioning into drawn KP vs K endgames would become a win for the stronger side. And, working backwards, middle games that are drawable by transitioning into such drawn RKP vs RK endgames would no longer be holdable. And this continues all the way up the tree to the very opening. So, eliminating stalemate isn’t something that just removes some corner case that happens rarely; it’s pretty fundamental to current chess theory.

and one might argue that if it does, it ought to be a win for the player in the superior position anyway

Prior to the stalemate rule as it stands now, it was sometimes ruled a LOSS for the player in the superior position. As in, “How dare you prevent me from making a legal move!? You LOSE, sir!”

@pulykamell

I had thought this was a universally recognized rule in speed chess, but I guess it’s only when playing “street rules.”

USCF official blitz rules do allow capturing the king as one possible way to indicate an illegal move that has left a king in check.

[dougrb]

@Bill_Door

The treacherous king is allowed to capture its own pieces as if they were opposing ones.

That sounds interesting.