30

The modern rules of chess, except for the stalemating being a draw, are basically equivalent to a game in which the goal is just to capture the king, not checkmate him. It's plausible that in the oldest versions of chess, this was indeed the goal, but since a rational player would then always move their king when in check, and never leave themselves in check, and would only have their king captured when there was no escaping from it, players may have decided that responding to check may as well just be made a rule.

I haven't been able to find any reliable source either confirming or refuting this hypothesis. Is there any?

Improve this question
3
  • 5
    I think capturing the King is still the goal, except the game ends one move before the actual event. Checkmate basically means, "I'm taking it next turn and there's nothing you can do about it."
    – Tony Ennis
    Commented Apr 3, 2016 at 21:10
  • 5
    Not quite Tony. Unlike having, say, a queen captured, a player in the modern game cannot mistakenly allow his king to be captured.
    – Hugh
    Commented Apr 3, 2016 at 22:21
  • 18
    @TonyEnnis that almost works, but not quite. Stalemate is the issue. If you can't move without moving your king into check, then in chess this is a draw. However, if the goal were to capture the king then this would be a losing position, because your king would be forced to move into check and would be captured the next move.
    – N. Virgo
    Commented Apr 3, 2016 at 23:04

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
25

Wikipedia claims that

In early Sanskrit chess (c. 500–700) the king could be captured and this ended the game. The Persians (c. 700–800) introduced the idea of warning that the king was under attack (announcing check in modern terminology). This was done to avoid the early and accidental end of a game. Later the Persians added the additional rule that a king could not be moved into check or left in check. As a result, the king could not be captured,[13] and checkmate was the only decisive way of ending a game.[14]

References [13] and [14] are to Davidson, Henry (1949), A Short History of Chess, which can be consulted on Google Books. I couldn't tell immediately what sources Davidson used.

Improve this answer
0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.