Why is Kc3 illegal in this position?

@Akbar2thegreat said in #10:
> Yes, but I have made the rule better.
> Remember when I suggested changes in rules of chess.
> One was about that absolute pinned pieces should not be able to control the pieces.
> And I had proper response for your words there.
> See: lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/my-opinion-two-chess-rules-should-be-revised#1

What if an argument can be made that the absolute pinned piece isn't actually perfectly immobilized because it can actually consider an exchange of kings on the chessboard? And, moreover, that hypothetical exchange of kings would end the game favorablly before your own King could be taken, ending the checkmate race. Therefore, that immoblized chess piece has influence on the squares it controls only because that piece is their king that would be taken if it went to such a square.

So, here's what I don't get about your suggestion. Isn't the tactical exchange of Kings not supposed to be something that should be considered in a real chess game? Why should this exchange consideration be allowed?

And, if that exchange consideration is allowed; then why can't a player move their king next to an opponent's king, if its protected? Their king can't legally take the opposing king, because its protected, right?

@Waltz_in_A_minor cuz some ppl dont like to blunder their king yeah?

@Approximation
It's very simple.
I will change one of the major initial rule of chess in that case.
Aim is to checkmate opponent king not to protect own king. Plus, capturing king isn't checkmate. You know what checkmate is. A checkmate is one where you check opponent and the king has no move to play.
And: if you talk of exchange of kings you can make it kinda racing kings where if White gets king to last rank and Black also gets on very next move then it its draw. But if Black first gets to last rank it would be win for Black.

because the king is in check then.

The answer depends on what variant you are playing, but I guess it is illegal in any variant...

Cause of draw

The rules, although stated with complex words, merely confirm what would happen if we played it out and captured the kings. White's king would be captured first on c3, so the game would be over before Black could capture.

For that reason it makes perfect sense to me. It is only to preserve the idea of checkmate as ending the game, rather than capturing the king, that the rules need to be complicated. That is a worthy reason. Checkmate is a concept that forces looking ahead. Thus it is at the heart of the game.

@Akbar2thegreat
with "absolute pin" you certainly mean "pin", or is there a difference?

Oh no his king

@ChessTiger_2021 said in #16:
> Cause of draw

what? that doesn't make any sense