simultaneous stalemate and checkmate

[Chronos]

I see the point. If we were to change the rules of chess, such that victory consisted of actually capturing the king, and it were legal to end one’s own move in check, then the game would be almost entirely unchanged, beyond opening up the possibility for a stupid mistake or an unusual way of conceding. And a game with that variant rule would be simpler, and it opens up the possibility of a lot of other variant rules. The only reason we don’t use that rule in official chess is because of long tradition, originating from some notion of the specialness of royalty. And yet, in the situation the OP describes, it makes a difference.

[Peremensoe]

“If we changed the rules of the game, it would occasionally make a difference in how the game played out.”

OK, can’t argue with that.

[snfaulkner]

Simultaneous stalemate and checkmate will never happen in chess unless you change the rules to allow it. Also, let’s change the rules to allow the pawns to be able to self destruct and take out all pieces in adjacent spaces. That would also occasionally make a difference in how the game is played.

[borschevsky]

@Chronos

I see the point. If we were to change the rules of chess, such that victory consisted of actually capturing the king, and it were legal to end one’s own move in check, then the game would be almost entirely unchanged, beyond opening up the possibility for a stupid mistake or an unusual way of conceding.

It would be a pretty major change. A large number of endgames are drawn because of stalemate ideas based on the defender not being able to put himself in check. They would all change from draws to wins.

[That_Don_Guy]

@Zach29

And what DO the rules say exactly???

They say this. Am I the only one who reads my posts?

[Dead_Cat]

@Zach29

But it just does not seem intuitive. I can understand why, under normal circumstances, it would be forbidden to move into check, because then your king would be captured and you would lose, if the game was allowed to play out the next 2 moves after the checkmate.

But that is not necessarily the case when one of the players would be unable to move.

And how do we define exactly what a “check” really is? Should it just be taken to mean that you should be on guard, and that there is no point to moving into check because you would just lose your king? In that case, moving into check is not forbidden in the same way that other moves are forbidden. I think that is where the concept of “check” and “checkmate” originated from. It just goes without saying that your king would be taken, so what is the point of letting you take it?

However, as kunilou pointed out, the one major exception is castling when the king would merely pass through check. Still, this little rule just does not seem very consistent with the rest of the game to me.

“Checkmate” should not be the end of the game when a stalemate is inevitable before the king could be captured, that is what I am thinking. Should it really be considered a checkmate when the enemy king can escape capture through a stalemate, and thus no more moves being allowed on the board? When one of the players becomes unable to move any pieces, even unable to move any pieces that would expose him to check, that is a very significant thing.

Although in some ways, the definition of a stalemate is different, because in that case you could theoretically be able to move a piece, but doing so would expose your king to check.

What is so important about being exposed to check? Have we focused so much on that single aspect that we have lost sight of the original meaning of chess? namely, to be able to take the enemy’s king?

You know what, I now see exactly where you’re coming from. Unfortunately, as others have said, you’re not going to get a more satisfying answer than “those are the rules”.

[pulykamell]

@That_Don_Guy

They say this. Am I the only one who reads my posts?

Ooo…I hate it when people do that to me. Credit where credit’s due.