H. G. Muller wrote on Mon, May 8, 2023 06:01 AM UTC:
Just stating that one wins by capturing the king doesn't fully cover it, as stalemate can be achieved by immobilizing a bare king. Assuming that removing one's own king is illegal. As I don't think removal of own pieces is covered by the term 'capture', the rules should either explicitly state king removal is terminating the game as a loss, or it would have to be specified that stalemate is a win. Which, together with king capture as winning condition implies that checkmate is a win. Assuming that none of the players will ever be so stupid as to overlook he can capture the king.
BTW, 'stalemating the opponent king' is a non-sensical phrase: the concept of stalemate applies to a player, not to one particular piece of a player.
Also note that when level of play is so low that players are likely to blunder away their King in a single move, invoking concepts like checkmate becomes a bit pointless, as they would not be able to recognize a checkmate with any accuracy. This becomes more an issue of how to handle illegal moves, which I do not consider so much part of the game rules, but more 'tounament etiquette'. Even orthodox Chess is often played with 'blitz rules', where an immediate win can be claimed after an opponent plays an illegal move, rather than forcing a takeback and resuming the game from there. So king-capture victory can simply be seen as a method for claiming a win after violation of a checking rule. The important issue from a game-theoretical perspective is how to handle stalemates.
Just stating that one wins by capturing the king doesn't fully cover it, as stalemate can be achieved by immobilizing a bare king. Assuming that removing one's own king is illegal. As I don't think removal of own pieces is covered by the term 'capture', the rules should either explicitly state king removal is terminating the game as a loss, or it would have to be specified that stalemate is a win. Which, together with king capture as winning condition implies that checkmate is a win. Assuming that none of the players will ever be so stupid as to overlook he can capture the king.
BTW, 'stalemating the opponent king' is a non-sensical phrase: the concept of stalemate applies to a player, not to one particular piece of a player.
Also note that when level of play is so low that players are likely to blunder away their King in a single move, invoking concepts like checkmate becomes a bit pointless, as they would not be able to recognize a checkmate with any accuracy. This becomes more an issue of how to handle illegal moves, which I do not consider so much part of the game rules, but more 'tounament etiquette'. Even orthodox Chess is often played with 'blitz rules', where an immediate win can be claimed after an opponent plays an illegal move, rather than forcing a takeback and resuming the game from there. So king-capture victory can simply be seen as a method for claiming a win after violation of a checking rule. The important issue from a game-theoretical perspective is how to handle stalemates.