Answers.Body: <p>Removing one player's king would have two effects:</p>
  <ol>
  <li>In the endgame the king is notionally worth 4 points as an attacking piece, more than a knight or bishop and almost as much as a rook. That is a massive advantage for the player with the king.</li>
  </ol>
  <p>However, as Sigbert Tarrasch said, &quot;<em>Before the endgame, the Gods have placed the middle game</em>&quot;</p>
  <ol start="2">
  <li>In the opening and middle game the player without the king has a massive advantage. Checks and tactics involving the king (pins, skewers, back rank threats) all disappear. The one weakness in the kingless player's position, f2, can generally be defended by moves like f3 (no longer a weakening move, instead it supports the center and prevents a piece like a knight or bishop coming to g4), Nh6 and Qe1 (also lining up the queen against the opponent's king).</li>
  </ol>
  <p>The net effect would be to make the game very unbalanced but favouring the player without the king since their advantage comes first.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-09-20T11:52:05.967Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-09-20T11:52:05.967Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Body: <p>If I remove a king from one side, which side has an advantage?
  Say, the losing condition will change for that side to &quot;no pieces left&quot;.</p>
  <p>Removing king = one less way to lose, but an extra piece is an extra piece.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-09-19T17:08:05.157Z
Comments.Text: @user30536, well, not really. It's "who has more chances to win from the start" advantage, if it makes sense
Comments.UserDisplayName: voismager
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-09-19T17:10:39.213Z
Comments.Text: I think you're right. Now that the rules have changed, estimated material advantage != "winning" advantage.
Comments.UserDisplayName: voismager
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-09-19T17:20:19.893Z
Comments.Text: @user30536 the question is pretty clear. It's probably hard to answer, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the question. For example the question is quite easy if we simlify the starting position a bit and, for instance, get the queens traded off.
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-09-19T22:28:34.930Z
Comments.Text: @user30536 best to think about it as chess variants such as capture-the-king but also imbalanced
Comments.UserDisplayName: qwr
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-09-23T23:24:28.723Z
Comments.Text: I'd be surprised if the side with the king doesn't have a large advantage honestly - any trade favors them, since they win the endgame by a large margin.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Allure
Tags: <chess-variants><kings><advantage>
Title: If I remove a king from one side, which side has an advantage?
ThreadText: # If I remove a king from one side, which side has an advantage?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2022-09-19)
  
  If I remove a king from one side, which side has an advantage?
  Say, the losing condition will change for that side to "no pieces left".
  
  Removing king = one less way to lose, but an extra piece is an extra piece.
  
  **Tags:** chess-variants, kings, advantage
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: @user30536, well, not really. It's "who has more chances to win from the start" advantage, if it makes sense  
  > **username_0**: I think you're right. Now that the rules have changed, estimated material advantage != "winning" advantage.  
  > **username_1**: @user30536 the question is pretty clear. It's probably hard to answer, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the question. For example the question is quite easy if we simlify the starting position a bit and, for instance, get the queens traded off.  
  > **username_2**: @user30536 best to think about it as chess variants such as capture-the-king but also imbalanced  
  > **username_3**: I'd be surprised if the side with the king doesn't have a large advantage honestly - any trade favors them, since they win the endgame by a large margin.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2022-09-20. Score: 4
  
  Removing one player's king would have two effects:
  
  1. In the endgame the king is notionally worth 4 points as an attacking piece, more than a knight or bishop and almost as much as a rook. That is a massive advantage for the player with the king.
  
  However, as Sigbert Tarrasch said, "*Before the endgame, the Gods have placed the middle game*"
  
  2. In the opening and middle game the player without the king has a massive advantage. Checks and tactics involving the king (pins, skewers, back rank threats) all disappear. The one weakness in the kingless player's position, f2, can generally be defended by moves like f3 (no longer a weakening move, instead it supports the center and prevents a piece like a knight or bishop coming to g4), Nh6 and Qe1 (also lining up the queen against the opponent's king).
  
  The net effect would be to make the game very unbalanced but favouring the player without the king since their advantage comes first.
  
  
  ---
  
  