Answers.Body: <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate#History">Wikipedia</a> claims that</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>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]</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>References [13] and [14] are to Davidson, Henry (1949), <em>A Short History of Chess</em>, which can be consulted on Google Books. I couldn't tell immediately what sources Davidson used.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-04-03T20:57:06.037Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-04-03T20:57:06.037Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Body: <p>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.</p>
  
  <p>I haven't been able to find any reliable source either confirming or refuting this hypothesis. Is there any?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-04-03T21:10:06.400Z
Comments.Text: 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."
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-04-03T22:21:38.087Z
Comments.Text: Not quite Tony. Unlike having, say, a queen captured, a player in the modern game cannot mistakenly allow his king to be captured.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hugh
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-04-03T23:04:52.757Z
Comments.Text: @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.
Comments.UserDisplayName: N. Virgo
Tags: <history><kings><captures>
Title: Was there ever a time when the goal in chess was to capture the king?
ThreadText: # Was there ever a time when the goal in chess was to capture the king?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-04-03)
  
  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?
  
  **Tags:** history, kings, captures
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: 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."  
  > **username_2**: Not quite Tony. Unlike having, say, a queen captured, a player in the modern game cannot mistakenly allow his king to be captured.  
  > **username_3**: @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.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2016-04-03. Score: 25
  
  [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate#History) 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.
  
  
  ---
  
  