I was just thinking about a rule that would really be awesome.

Imagine you are white. It is your turn. You move your queen in and checkmate the black king. Normally the game is over... Right?

In my new rule, it is NOT! But almost. When the black gets checkmated, it's his turn. In tha turn if he can checkmate the white king then the game becomes a draw/stalemate! (0.5)

You could also see it this way. The black king is dead when he gets checkmated. To "avenge" his death his forces have one last move to kill white's king. If they suceed it is a draw. If not then the opponent (whoever mated first) wins!

To immpliment these kinds of rules I also came up with a suggestion for Chess.com

They should have a chess in which rules that are currently not officially legal are allowed! This way members can learn the rules, play on that board, and then rate each rule and give feedback about it! This would be really cool.

Please post feedback. I am looking forward to seeing how you guys like it!

-Arkafan

Also please tell me if there is a problem with one of these ideas. Thanks!

Yea what better way to learn the rules than have a "chess" where you can move any piece any way you want.

I wondered if we could have some "handicap" system in special handicap tournaments. Just as an example, if I lose against a player who is rated 250 higher than me, I get 1/4 point for a lost game, 3/4 for a draw, and 1 1/4 for a win.

If a player is rated say 500 higher than me, I get an extra 1/2 point for a loss, score 1 for a draw, and 1 1/2 for a win.

Thaey do something similar for horse races don't they...maybe only the chessnut coloured horses though.

They already have that. It's called your rating. If you wanted to run a tournament that way you could just say the winner is the person with the best performance rating. Of course, that would promote sandbagging.

I'll try to learn this way first.

Why are so many of you giving this guy a hard time?  Whether you agree or not, at least he raises an interesting point.  And since chess has evolved, there is in fact a precedent for rules to change, and who can truly say that the rules will never change again?  There are many variations on chess as we speak, some of them quite popular, and this may become one of those, and some elements of those variations may someday make it into what we call "chess" the game.  So I applaud the idea.

Doesn't that kinda wreck the idea that white has an easier game cause he's a tempo up? Won't that just increase the draw rate?  Just asking

Why?

The concept behind checkmate is that no matter what he does, the king will be dead.  ("Shah mat"="the king is dead", although I have seen at least one source that says it really means, "the king is ambushed" http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%98  )

So, player 1 makes it so that on the next turn, player 2's king will be dead.  Player 2 responds by nearly killing the king of player 1.  Player 1 would then kill the king of player 2.  Player 2 now has no king, and player 1 has a king.  That's the point of the game, so player 1 wins.

Why stop it at one turn?  Why not keep going for several turns?  If, after your king is dead, you can kill the other king, it's a draw.  Would an army really stop fighting instantly after the king dies?

So, in other words, I think the suggestion is contrary to the spirit of the game.  If your king dies, or is in a position where death/capture cannot be avoided, you lose, immediately.  You don't get one more chance.

Although I do kind of like the historical variant rule from Tamerlane's Chess.  In that variant, known from 14th century manuscriptes, there is a "ransom move".  Once per game, if the king is in check, the player may trade places between his king and any other piece.  Now that would make things more exciting.

its a good idea.. but it would increase the drawrates, and frankly they have been to high lately anyway. 

 People on this forum are jerks. I try not to be but I probably am sometimes. I don't like the OP's idea, but I'm not going to mock him for it.

I guess the point is that if you're Capablanca then you can suggest that the board needs to be enlarged and two new pieces introduced to reduce the number of draws; or if you're Fischer you can suggest that the pieces should not begin on the same squares every game; and at least people will listen even if they ultimately reject your ideas. But if you're a Johnny-come-lately and, on the available evidence, a nebbish who barely knows the first thing about the game, and you come wading in proclaiming to have seen the light, you're likely to get a PALATR for your pains. Before you can expect to be taken seriously over any proposal to radically revise the game, you need to demonstrate that your understanding of it in its existing form is second to none.

If you can't take some ribbing for making a dumb proposal then you shouldn't be posting on a public internet forum.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it sounds like you are not a jerk at all.  And you are right about others being jerks here in the forums, presumably to justify their pathetic existences.  I suppose if that's what it takes to get them through their days, to each his own, right?

Compared to the mild posts of the the "jerks" in this thread, your comment is actually more offensive.

IMO, if one can't take reading a few mildly negative or mocking comments you need to get over yourself.

Sour baby faces too much? Please.