It’s already both happened to me that I didn’t notice I couldn’t move a piece without exposing the king or that I won by accident. Had the game not announced this, I wouldn’t have known.
And perhaps the opponent might not notice my mistake either. Or it could just be a strategic high-risk scenario, rather than a mistake.
Technically, chess ends one turn before the king is taken. “Checkmate” basically means, “I can capture your king next turn of I want to and there’s no way you can avoid it.”
You’re not allowed to put your own king in check because, if this were allowed, stalemate wouldn’t be possible; the game would always end with the loser moving their king into check and the winner taking it. The rule allows the player of a losing game to still play for a draw, as opposed to simply resigning.
Can you explain how stalemates would be impossible if you could self-check? Functionally I don’t see how that’s any different from resigning.
You could still stalemate by avoiding check and causing threefold repetition.
If you self-check, your opponents next move is always to take the king and win. Check means ‘if it’s my turn I can capture your king’.
How is that different from resigning?
The player can still draw by refusing to self check, right?
If you refuse to make a move, you resign, you lose.
If you are unable to make a move, it’s a stalemate, you do not lose.
It just gives you an extra chance to avoid a total loss by having your opponent make a mistake.
Got it.
A game that would normally stalemate because the only move is self check becomes a loss because you have a self check available.