Chess rating: 1490
Give chess goodie
|Mon May 7 2018 12:00PM | edited: 1:00:31 | MsgID: 19784483|
The threefold repetition rule (if the same position is repeated on 3 consecutive turns, the game is a draw) did not come about until the 1880's. Aside from chess variations the game is one of the few things that has stood the test of time in it's recognised modern form without need for change.
The only argument that I have ever really given any thought to is that of the revealed check in a mating position. I would imagine 99% of chess players myself included do not hold by the argument given purely on the grounds that checkmate is given when the opponents king can make no legal move.
The argument some have come up with is that whilst the game ends there. It is because the king can make no move that would not see it captured on the following move. So, what if one of the pieces administering the check(s) would put its own king in check were it to follow through on actually taking the opponents king? As you cannot make a move that puts your king in check, the premise therefore is that said piece in reality could not carry out the capture so should it not be deemed powerless.
As I said to my mind the game ends a move prior to removal of the king so that is the end of the matter. However I confess I do find it quite an interesting point of view.