New rules

I started it because I was curious to know if I was the only one phantasising sometimes over a chessboard  thinking  "what if this or that were allowed?". And also because I personally don't find chess 960 a very attractive alternative. Just because we are not as good at chess as Bobby Fisher doesn't mean we cannot as creative in inventing new rules......

personnally, i like plain old boring chess.  the ideas of trying to learn new rules when i am not sure i have figured out all the real ones is a bit intense. and i am at a point in the game where openings don't seem all that important, so whether a computer figures out a "solution" to chess makes no difference to me.  i am going to be lost regardless. 

 hehe.. I am not vey rich, but I live in a street where all the houses are connected. So I'ld have to run around the whole block. On the other hand, my opponent would have to do the same, and I am a fast runner !

Maybe it is not so much about adding new pieces, but about giving new rights to the existing ones. Don't forget it is a very old game, with all the social injustices of the old times included. When will for instance the pawns stand up for their civil rights and demand at least the right to move backwards like all the other pieces ????

new rule's, how about being able to exchange a pawn for a second king.!!

Now this is not about preventing computers to play chess but about making chess more natural: players should be able to pass. Just like in a real battle, when nobody forces you to do something if you can defend just fine in your fortress.

Think about it, zugzwang is the source of a lot of counter-intuitive play in the endgame that has nothing to do with chess principles. Forget about opposition and triagulation. If I put my king in front of your pawn it's a draw, period.

Actually, as a result computers would be able to play much better chess ...

Heh! And the king and queen trade places and she gets to wear his headpiece, eh? Not to mention the racial aspects; 4 of the black pawns and oficers must trade places with their white counterparts in order to stabilize cultural balance in the two communities...?

I think the two move rule might just cause a whole lot of really short games. The take your own piece rule would most likely result in the same thing.

I (mostly) prefer humans to machines in all walks of life.
I don't think the hacking bit is really an actual problem (naivity on my behalf?), seeing as chess has a tendency to lean up against the players ego - where's the joy in winning a cognitive game when you had help? Wouldn't that result in the opposite effect on an internal basis (e.g. you'd feel dumber because you NEEDED help)?

All the while this is practically normal in the online gaming communities around the globe, I don't really think it's a big problem in chess. It happens yes, but hey... Sometimes even a rooster may lay an egg.

Interesting idea ! 

 Intriguing possibility. Exchange the pawn on promotion ? And, when do you lose with two kings? when both kings are mate? Do you remove the first king that's mate before playing on  ?  Please explain....

If I recall correctly, in The Immortal Game they calculated how long, with all the variations, it would take to "solve" chess by putting the world's most powerful computer to "solving" it non-stop. They came up with ~17 times the lifespan of the sun. (Remember, think of ALL the variations: for example, at the beginning, you have 20 possible moves (for you who want to specific, plys). This quickly increases, but let's say it stays at 20. To get to move 10, you would need to calculate some 20^20 positions. And that's both giving a very conservative number of choices and getting through only the opening) So while computers have improved (and continue to do so), I don't think this will be an issue for a while.

I've always thought this would make an interesting handicap (allow only one player this privilege). Every time I hear of an "extra moves" handicap, it's a fixed number of moves made at the start of the game, but I bet a strong master could beat a patzer consistenly even with this variation.

LOL-- Lots of people come up with correlation/causation fallacies, but at least they usually involve events that happen in the right order!

Step off one side of the board and pop up on the other side.  For example, knight b1 to c7 or Bishop from a2 to c8 continuing on to say e6.  It would be like the board was rolled up from end to end and side to side.           

I'm pretty sure en passant and promotion(as we know it today) were the result of rule changes.

 Great idea Joseph ! But I am afraid the computer will be able to deal with that better than we would (at least than I would). I would need to buy a very flexible board with strong magnetic squares and pieces!

I read something similarly bizarre - that there are more possible games of chess of 40 moves or under than there are electrons in the universe.  Computer chess is not so much about cracking the game by force or running through all the permutations, it's becoming more and more about filtering the options.

On a side note, is it true that draughts has now been solved?

what you are talking here can become for a programmer a day or two of coding and here you go...rules changed for the computer and you will be busted again :)) we are useless facing computers.

"Resistance is futile" - Capt. Picard as Borg

Yes, in 2007.

Yeah?  Nice to see I'm bang up to date.  Has anyone heard of facebook?  That'll be big when it takes off.

yeah Mitsurugi, someone told me about that on ICQ....