Chess: Why don't they actually capture the king?

[Thudlow_Boink]

These threads look similar:

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

This chess YouTuber (an International Master) supports a change to the rules: basically, that the King can be removed from the board. Specifically, if you and I are playing and you move a piece that reveals a check on your King, well, too bad so sad, you just lost – as opposed to FIDE rules that say you’ve simply made an illegal move. Similarly, move your King into Check and, well, too bad so sad, you just lost – again, as opposed to FIDE rules that simply say you’ve made an illegal move. I rat…

At high levels of chess how would the game change with no check?

If FIDE were to simplify the rules of chess to “capture the king” and do away with check, (except regarding castling), and stalemate what major impact would that have on high level play: 2 obvious ones are that a K+P v K is now always a win if the K can protect the P and K+2N v K is now a win. Games potentially leading to those endgames will be evaluated differently. Any other major impacts this would have?