Why can't I capture the king???

Orlandohmor, now that you say that, it kinda is like a sexist game:P

C r y l i t t l e t r o l l, c r y. B u t n o b o d y c a r e s a b o u t y o u r e x t r e m e l y b o r i n g o p i n i o n o n t h e w o n d e r f u l g a m e o f c h e s s.

Because it would change a lot of stalemate scenarios where kings are in close quarters, thus ruining the game 

The real answer to your question (which is valid) is because of the interim move your opponent must make.

Checkmating your opponent is declaring your next move will win the King, so NOT ending the game at this point would mean that it's now your opponent's turn. All moves are equally futile at this point, so his move is irrelevant. After he moves, your move is also irrelevant since you will clearly capture the King. The outcome was known by both players 2 moves previous.

To put it simply, the reason the game ends at checkmate is out of respect for your opponent. You are allowing him to resign instead of playing out the inevitable, so think of checkmate as just like any other normal resignation. If you're playing someone (on a real board), you could play to King capture - but after checkmate, why would your opponent bother go through the motion of playing his move before the obvious King capture? He would probably just shake your hand at checkmate (or before) since he can see the game is over at that point.

I agree it would be fun to capture the king, which is why the tradition exists of knocking over the king at resignation or checkmate. Killing that fucker is the entire point of the game.

OTB rules differ from Online rules. In OTB you can capture the king, there is no algorithm which prevents you from doing so.  

This is not capture the flag, afaik this is called chess. Long ago I've read that you have to kill the king, kill the king, kill the king. The queen may stay alive but the king has to be killed.

No you can't.

Yes, you are right!

White to play and checkmate in 2. Illegal position. Bear in mind Law A1.2 which says it's illegal to actually capture opponent's king. 

If you are in checkmate, but otherwise you could move to put your opponent in checkmate, should that be a draw? They can take your king, but if they do, you will take theirs.  

fctu wrote:

If you are in checkmate, but otherwise you could move to put your opponent in checkmate, should that be a draw? They can take your king, but if they do, you will take theirs.  

That's not the rule. The game ends when a player's king is threatened to be captured and there are no legal moves to change it.

Yes it is.  When chess was further developed in Persia before arriving in Europe, the concept of doing away with a king - even foreign kings unless condemned by your own king - was considered a death-deserving crime, in place for a couple millenia at least since several Fertile Crescent powers tried to maintain their powers: Persians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Thracians, etc.

Consequently the term "Shah matia" - from which the English word "checkmate" is derived means, "The king is helpless" - without power.  Killing a king wasn't something a king would have allowed in a game back then - we' re talking 500 AD or so.

The rules would be a lot easier on beginners, and I wouldn't have managed to get such a successful troll thread pretending not to know en passant, had the rules simply stated that kings could be captured.

It would not change the game at all. 

Best answer yet.

In the android chess app "world chess championship" they allow you to take the king

I remember a while back when I was playing on chess.com during a six hour drinking session, I managed to capture my opponent's King but then inexplicably the next day I could not find any record of the game. My opponent obviously hacked chess.com and deleted the game out of embarrassment.