capturing the king

All Things Chess
1

We all know how checkmate evolved. Before, you’d capture the king.

Now, if your rook is pinned by a bishop, your rook CANNOT MOVE. It is against the rules of chess.

If your rook cannot move, why can’t your opponent move her king onto the same
unobstructed rank or file as the pinned rook? The rook does not move diagonally and
does not move when pinned by a bishop. The rook ONLY moves along ranks and files
and then only when it is not pinned.

The answer is that if the king moves there, historically you would capture the king before
your opponent would capture yours, and you would win by capturing the king.

Perhaps more historically, if you were a king and one of your men killed the enemy
king, his men would have no commander and would surrender to you, lacking any
other instructions.

So the rule that says a stalemate is a draw, is a logical extension of the rule against
making moves that put your king in check under any circumstances.

2

"King"Robert E. Lee (a stand in for Jefferson Davis) resigned for his country. The opposing “King” Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by one of the opposing king’s men after the hostilities. I’m not so sure that chess mirrored life. In chess, Black is black and White is white and the two never mix together to form a “dirty gray” (Borrowing from an metaphor presumed to be referring to good and evil I heard in a country church long ago). In history all kinds of alliances and strange bedfellows popped up, I leave that to the history buff to verify. Maybe a better piece to focus on would be the queen? Imagine how her elevation in ability changed the game. Your stalmate idea is interesting. What if a king could move next to a king or into any other check and the opponent ran out of time before capturing this scoundrel. Would the flag fall end the game? I could only imagine the unjust final positions…But that’s life (and some chess).