Chess as a spectator sport

[Matt Mackenzie]

If the Laws of Chess were changed so that there was no such thing as check, checkmate or stalemate and that the game ended when a player captured the other player's King (even with his own King) it'd be far easier for people to understand.

It would be easier to understand yes but the game would be changed completely, especially the endings.

For instance, the ending K v K+P would always be a win for the player with the pawn, he would simply play for the stalemate position and then wait for his opponent to move into check, thereby losing the game.

Also it would be possible in some positions to win with a lone N or B.

K + RP + B of the wrong colour would become a very simple win.

Yes, it would be "easier to understand" - but would be a less interesting game too. Do we really want to dumb chess down, as with so much else?

[Alex Holowczak]

You're both right that the game would be changed completely.

A thought experiment. Suppose at the moment, the rules said that the game ended when a King was captured, and someone proposed that we should change the rule so that the game ends at checkmate.

There would be two arguments:
(1) That would make lots of winnable endgames, such as KB (wrong Rook's pawn) v K drawn
(2) The game would be unnecessarily complicated

Rather than commenting on what the changes are, I think you need to think about it in terms of the pros and cons of making the changes; and be careful to avoid listing the fact that it's a change in the "cons" column.

[Angus French]

If one is explaining chess to someone who doesn't know the game, is it not easier to say that the objective is to capture the opponent's king - a concept which is relatively concrete and to which many would, I think, be able to relate - and then to explain that this is achieved through checkmate - a concept which abstract?

[Roger de Coverly]

and be careful to avoid listing the fact that it's a change in the "cons" column.

That it's a change is a con. Change the rule on stalemate and you change much of endgame theory. Change endgame theory and you change middlegames and openings as well. On the unproven premise that chess is a draw with correct play, you might even unbalance it so much that having Black is nearly unplayable.

[Alex Holowczak]

and be careful to avoid listing the fact that it's a change in the "cons" column.

That it's a change is a con.

[Clive Blackburn]

I think it would perhaps be ok to change the rules to allow the capture of the king, if that is easier for beginners to understand.

There would be 2 consequences of this:-

• It would take one more move to win the game, which could possibly lead to a player losing on time even though there is a checkmate on the board.
  
  A move into check would no longer be illegal, it would just be a blunder and would lose if the opponent spotted that he could capture the king.

So long as the other rules such as stalemate remained, I can't see any problems.

[Alex Holowczak]

It would take one more move to win the game, which could possibly lead to a player losing on time even though there is a checkmate on the board.

There's a rule at the moment that says if your flag falls when your opponent can't win by any series of legal moves, then it's a draw. Clearly, in this case, the player who has been checkmated cannot deliver checkmate by any series of legal moves. "Legal moves" would need careful definition, admittedly!

I suppose if he has been checkmated, he might have his opponent's King already in check, and so he could win the game by capturing it even though he is himself checkmated.

A move into check would no longer be illegal, it would just be a blunder and would lose if the opponent spotted that he could capture the king.

Indeed, which would reduce the number of beginners' games I have to dive into and stop...

It's worth noting in passing that an illegal move will lose the game in Rapidplay, as well as it does already in Blitz, from next July. So a King move into check will already be a game-losing move in anything other than standardplay chess next year.

So long as the other rules such as stalemate remained, I can't see any problems.

You could do this, but you'd need a rule that said if your only legal move is to put your King onto a square where an opponent's piece could capture it, then it's a draw. If you make it so that you have to claim this, rather than it be automatically awarded, it might be instructive for the beginner. If they nevertheless move their K and it gets taken, tough. If they see this problem and claim it, they might learn something about not moving their K into check.

[Mark Hannon]

My experiences of teaching juniors is Chess would be far easier if the rules were just as Alex suggests - first to capture the opponents king wins.
You could still keep stalemate and all the subsequent ending theory if you wish .
On the other hand stale mate always seems a bit unfair to the stalemating side, Nigel Short mentioned it seems unfair that someone reaching Bishop and wrong rook pawn only gets half a point , the same as his opponent.

Decreasing the drawing margin may be just what chess needs as a boost, it reminds me of when football made the back pass illegal games became more open and high scoring.

As regards chess as a spectator sport, the point is internet is now overtaking TV so niche interests like chess have found a home. Watching the World championship on a computer is much better than the TV version could be, which would only be dumbed down relative to the level that the people on this forum would want.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Suggestions that the stalemate rule is "silly" and "unfair" have been made for the best part of a century. They should have no more success now than in the past.

The past 48 hours have shown, yet again, that "draw death" is a myth

[Clive Blackburn]

Watching the World championship on a computer is much better than the TV version could be, which would only be dumbed down relative to the level that the people on this forum would want.

I agree, I would much rather watch it live on the internet and read all the comments from the kibitzers.

The only drawback is that such broadcasts inevitably attract Trolls, spammers and idiots who think that a Houdini evaluation of +0.05 actually means something!