And Yet MORE Silly Rules In Chess lol

As I was preparing to write the first post for this new thread I saw that among the items up for discussion in the forms were changes to the Stalemate rule and also changes to the En Passant rule as well. There have not been any Major rule changes in Chess in nearly 500 years but some people feel that Chess needs to be changed to suit their purposes. Okay then let us do an overhaul of the rules ( tongue planted firmly in cheek at this point  lol ). I happen to feel that the Queen has too much power, I mean charging around all over the board in any direction like " Supergirl ". I feel that the Queen should be limited to moving one square at a time just like the poor old King, after all what is good for the Gander is good for the Goose as well lol. 

I think it is interesting that the Queen has a weakness for dashing knights...

While we're at it, let's let pawns capture forward!

cabadenwurt You might like chess as it was played several hundred yrs ago in the Medieval ages: the Q moved like the K, pawns only moved one sq at a time  and the Bishops only moved 2 sqs at a time diagonally, Rooks & Kts moved as they do now. GMs Benko & Bisguier played a match with these rules and the games went of for hundreds of moves...

Thanks for the interesting posts. I remember reading that Paul Morphy would get very very very stressed out when his opponent would drag out the time between moves because there were no time-limits back when Morphy was playing. Bringing in time-controls thru the use of Chess-clocks is probably the most important new rule in the last 500 years and a very necessary rule at that.   

NimzoRay: I think that you have just invented a " NEW " variation of Chess that we will name as " Ancient Chess ". The game will go until there is a winner even if it take a whole week. If one of the players passes away from old age during the game the surviving player wins no matter what the position is on the board  lol.

Ivandh: I see that you are casting dispersions upon the honour of the Queen however in Chess we find that the rules must be followed at all times ( hence the reason for this thread  lol ).

Between White or Glossy Shining or Dashingly Handsome with or without armour I will pick normal brain, simple looking Knights. 

Rheite on dued! Ke2!!

Normal brains for knights are generally well below normal.

In my first post here I mentioned the fact that some players were upset over the Stalemate rule. I found it quite interesting that the player who managed to avoid being caught in a Checkmate was not considered as being worthy of any reward. The idea of a game ending as a " Tie " between two players or two teams seems to be quite foreign to a lot of people. 

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

Thanks for all of these posts here, we are off to a flying start to be sure  lol. 

The most frequently misunderstood rule I've come across is castling through check. Some players seem to think if the rook passes over a square attacked by the opponent (but not the king) then castling's not allowed

And what's with no mobile phones in chess tournament halls?  Other people get to distract me during a game by being ugly but I am not allowed to have phone sex with my wife?

lol

Ibeatyoucheckmater: I agree with you on the Castling, why have one move where the King gets to move more than one square plus we move more than one Piece at the same time ? Not logical at all so therefore Castling has to go !

Would love to see a world championship match where the white player sits down, shakes hands with his opponent and plays 1) Nd5. Would be even funnier if the player with the black pieces didn't bat an eye and played 1) ...Bc5.

What would the spectators think?

Come on, guys.  Don't screw with a good thing.  Quaint can be good...   Fiddler et al...  Multiple queens though...  hum.

Squares have to go. Distances should be pythagorean.