Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

And Yet MORE Silly Rules In Chess lol


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #41

    ruffian1

    Sounds like, you are just getting closer, and closer, to Stanley Random Chess.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #42

    cabadenwurt

    Thanks for the post, I'm sticking with " Super-Duper Chess " tho. We will of course need to set up a Rules convention however, perhaps to be held in the same location with the next World Championship tournament for the FIDE in a couple of years.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #43

    cabadenwurt

    I notice that the threads discussing the Stalemate rule are quite busy however changes to rules cannot be made in a vaccum. Other rules would be affected and therefore a Rules convention would be needed. Lists of ideas for changes would need to be drawn up, much would have to be done etc etc ... ... ...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #44

    Hammerschlag

    ~~~

    How about allowing the King to switch spots with Pawns. For example, if the White King is checkmated on the g1 square via Queen-Bishop battery on the h2 square; there are pawns on g2 and f2, and the Rook on f1, then the King could pull the f2 pawn to the g1 square and the King will end up on the f2 square. Ofcourse, this is only possible if the f2 square is not under attack. I think that would be cool to see the King sacrifice a pawn so he can escape.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #45

    cabadenwurt

    Thanks for the info Hammerschlag.

    I see that today there is a vote taking place in regards to the Stalemate rule. I feel that if one opponent cannot Checkmate his enemy the game should be a Draw, better luck next time  lol.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #46

    cabadenwurt

    I've noticed that there is a thread on the go here calling for the  abolishing of Checkmates and I think that might be going just a bit too far. After all Chess games do have to be brought to an end sooner or later. If a game does not turn into a Draw then one of the players must have the chance to win the game at some point. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #47

    cabadenwurt

    Going back two posts I mentioned that the Stalemate rule should stay. If you cannot Checkmate your opponent ( and he does not run out of time ) then you do NOT deserve to win the game, very simple and yet very logical  lol.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #48

    sisu

    Let's make it happen!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #49

    cabadenwurt

    Thanks for the post Sisu. Since there have been no major rule changes in 500 years no need to start now, the Stalemate rule stays.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #50

    cabadenwurt

    I notice that a thread calling for the abolishing of the Stalemate rule has now gone beyond 750 posts. A bit of a puzzle there on that one as that rule seems quite logical in the sense of " No Checkmate equals NO Win ".

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #51

    cabadenwurt

    This item is more about a silly suggestion rather than a silly rule. I was reading along thru the forums here and I came across a thread asking people to " Show some Class ". Yes I kid you not ! The person who started that thread was expecting some class on the Internet  rofl. I laughed so hard that I nearly peed myself, I almost did myself an injury. OK next on the list: Foxes will quit raiding Hen-houses; Killer-whales will give everyone piggyback rides; all Sharks will become vegetarians  etc etc. 

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #52

    Javan64

    Here's a suggestion for chess.com -- if a player takes vacation time (of any length), then no more vacation time can be used for another month!  Maybe that would speed up some of these tournaments.  Oh wait a minute, I just saw the 1st post in this thread: it's supposed to be Tongue-in-Cheek; sorry for the serious suggestion...

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #53

    1RedKnight99

    I know: We play with no pieces!

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #54

    cabadenwurt

    Thanks for the recent posts.

    Javan64: We take any kind of suggestions regarding Chess. A couple of people visiting this thread thought that it was serious  lol.

    Jrzmath99: Good idea, I remember a scene like that from " Searching for Bobby Fischer ". 

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #55

    levi223

    chessblood wrote:
    LearningTigran wrote:

    I remember reading that in the 1800's some people disagreed with multiple queens by one player as it seemed to promote poligamy.

    lol


    you spelled polygamy wrong...

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #56

    JariIkonen

    how about this, no piece can pass over another piece. tho the first piece can push the others.

    used to play that sometimes here in northern sweden during the boring dark winter.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #57

    pellik

    I think it is rediculous that pieces in chess have different classes! It's like some embodiment of the feudal system. Chess pieces should be equal, and only have one class. They should all be pawns!

    However, to keep the game interesting the way pawns move should be changed. Instead of just capturing a pawn, they should leap over the pawn they capture an extra square! Additionally pawns should move in the direction they capture (diagonally). 

    Now, with all pawns the starting position would clearly no longer work (diagonal movement would limit the pawns to one color), so all of the pawns should start staggered and only only the same color squares.

    It may also be interesting if pawns could capture more then one piece at a time. Perhaps when the pawn finishes capturing a piece it should have the option to combo if it is immediately capapble of capturing another pawn. 

    One last rule, to keep things interesting, is that pawns which promote should become kings (none of this only one king business). This is in the true american spirit showing how anyone can become king of america. 

    This would clearly improve chess, and I think would be a quite popular game.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #58

    AlCzervik

    ^good one!

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #59

    Javan64

    pellik wrote:

    I think it is rediculous that pieces in chess have different classes! It's like some embodiment of the feudal system. Chess pieces should be equal, and only have one class. They should all be pawns!

    However, to keep the game interesting the way pawns move should be changed. Instead of just capturing a pawn, they should leap over the pawn they capture an extra square! Additionally pawns should move in the direction they capture (diagonally). 

    Now, with all pawns the starting position would clearly no longer work (diagonal movement would limit the pawns to one color), so all of the pawns should start staggered and only only the same color squares.

    It may also be interesting if pawns could capture more then one piece at a time. Perhaps when the pawn finishes capturing a piece it should have the option to combo if it is immediately capapble of capturing another pawn. 

    One last rule, to keep things interesting, is that pawns which promote should become kings (none of this only one king business). This is in the true american spirit showing how anyone can become king of america. 

    This would clearly improve chess, and I think would be a quite popular game.

    My 1st thought was that this should be called "the commie variation," but then it occurred to me that this game is already played; it's called "checkers" I believe.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #60

    Scottrf

    Javan64 wrote:
    pellik wrote:

    I think it is rediculous that pieces in chess have different classes! It's like some embodiment of the feudal system. Chess pieces should be equal, and only have one class. They should all be pawns!

    However, to keep the game interesting the way pawns move should be changed. Instead of just capturing a pawn, they should leap over the pawn they capture an extra square! Additionally pawns should move in the direction they capture (diagonally). 

    Now, with all pawns the starting position would clearly no longer work (diagonal movement would limit the pawns to one color), so all of the pawns should start staggered and only only the same color squares.

    It may also be interesting if pawns could capture more then one piece at a time. Perhaps when the pawn finishes capturing a piece it should have the option to combo if it is immediately capapble of capturing another pawn. 

    One last rule, to keep things interesting, is that pawns which promote should become kings (none of this only one king business). This is in the true american spirit showing how anyone can become king of america. 

    This would clearly improve chess, and I think would be a quite popular game.

    My 1st thought was that this should be called "the commie variation," but then it occurred to me that this game is already played; it's called "checkers" I believe.

    Yeah, that was the joke.


Back to Top

Post your reply: