An argument for making a standard for great chess

Adding squares to chess for new pieces is a traditional kind of a variant. It's also kind of a logical extension of chess which is aligned with the general evolution of chess.

Chess has always had rule changes. Anyone who says anything different doesn't know what they're talking about. And the rule changes usually have a compelling justification to improve the game.

For example, the bishop and the queen replaced the elephant and the minister, which the bishop did by an intermediate stage where it occupied the new squares. Why?

Because it created a more dynamic and exciting game.

Castling was added to chess. Why?

Because people realized that getting your king out of the center is usually a good thing to do, and connecting your rooks is usually a good thing to do. Allowing castling makes the game more exciting by allowing you to do both of these in one move instead of making the game more boring by requiring multiple moves. It also adds strategic depth by providing the king additional safety.

The pawn being able to move up two on the first move was added to chess. Why?

Because it makes the game quicker and more exciting. Now players don't have to take two moves to move their pawn up two.

En passant was added to chess. Why?

To fix the problem of the pawn moving up two negatively affecting the mechanics in a serious way. En passant is a compromise between the new rule (pawn move up two on first move) and the old rule (pawns can only move up one square, never two).

And now there's a new twist on a perennial problem, one unique to the 21st century: computers are more powerful than they've ever been. To play chess at a high level requires intense opening preparation, usually with a computer. And at that, all opening preparation at this level basically assumes early d4 (and often c4) or e4 by White, which was already suspected by the 17th century. And now Weissenhaus has proven, as we probably already suspected, that the best player of the fixed chess should be the best player of chess960 because it just transposes into known endgames.

So José Raúl Capablanca and Edward Lasker thought of a rule change to fix this modern problem. One that is a compromise, albeit slightly inelegant, between near-orthodoxy and gratuitous reform. The board is 10 squares wide and there are two new pieces moving as the other compounds of the simple non-royal pieces.

These new pieces have corresponding pawns. Why?

I doubt if Capablanca and Lasker knew about King Gustav III’s chess, wherein he perplexingly wanted two Amazons as new pieces, but resorted to adding just their squares so they would not see each other from the corners if he added nothing in front of them. Just letting the extra pawns exist is more in the spirit of the right chess if you want to make the board wider.

And a small note about chess960, chess18 and Paradigm Chess30, which adds Xiangqi Horse moves to the bishop, are for the people who feel that it allows weird openings that don’t feel right. This has been the same case with Capablanca and Lasker’s variant, both because of the new pieces’ own nature and them interrupting the old pieces.

So the rationale for standardizing great chess to have the new pieces in the corners and not forcing them to be very strong is similar to the rationales used to justify previous changes to the game throughout history. If our ancestors could accept changes to the rules to improve the game, why can't we?

I see what this post is about: how chess rules changed over time

And why there should be a standard for great chess (probably placing modern manns/crowned dababas in the corners mainly to keep the old pieces 8 in a row)

is a modern mann the same as a crowned dababa?

the Crowned dabbaba is King + Dabbaba, the mann is a non royal king

I call it “modern” because it respects the modern king having castling (a double step sideways for the king).

Okay, I thought it was about a King + dabbaba compound

A King + dabbaba compound also does that, but is a stronger offensive piece.

I have a question: on chaturanga stalemate makes the stalemated player loses, but why on standard chess stalemate is a draw?