Bringing Chess into the modern world

Chess was invented more than a hundred years ago and since its inception the world has changed beyond recognition but chess has stuck steadfastly to its old traditions stuck in a time-warp.  As we near the beginning of a new millennium I think it would be a good time for chess to update: to get with it; to modernise and so retain its appeal to the next generation of younger players.

There must be literally hundreds of ways of doing this so I have come up with three - my triplet of ideas:

• Bishops: when chess was invented the church was actually quite powerful and through torture and repression most of the Western world was forced to attend mass.  In the modern era where less than 1% of the population actually believes any of this Religious schtick any more and even fewer go to church it is an anathema that Bishops are still so powerful on the chess-board.  I would propose that they are greatly emasculated: they still move diagonally but only one square at a time.  And they should be multi-denominational.
  
• Knights: Are you having a laugh?  The last time that cavalry was used in a real war situation was at Beenie during the ill-fated charge of the Light Brigade.  Horses are an anachronism in the modern world and in most European countries they are now used only for food.  Instead replace the Knight with a modern tank and instead of an L shaped move let its move be the diagonal of a rectangle.
  
• Pawns:  What are they supposed to be? (From the medieval acronym Peasants And Women later with advent of N into English - becoming Pawn???) As a great philosopher once said "Children are the future" and so they should be in chess.  The pawns should be children and they should move one or two forwards or backwards depending on what they feel like.  Needless to say Bishops will not be allowed on adjacent squares to the pawns.

Any other ideas?

so you suggest:

Bishops should be snipers.

Knights should be tanks.

I should aim on children.

I'm surprised you didn't say the Queen should be a nuclear bomb?

What about the rooks? What should they be?

Anyway, in my opinion the game is more exciting the ancient way. It's really a battlefield and I love history, so why not give our great grandaddy's/mommy's some respect by keeping the game the same...

 I think you have deliberately misunderstood.  Have you been smoking?

How about instead of a Queen we have a locally appointed official and instead of moving in any direction across as many squares he sees fit he is unable to move until all the other pieces have been lost and the games over.For a Rook you could have a housing estate,but being so large and ungainly can only move one square maybe two initially if theres a riot going on.

The children should probably fall over now and then, due to being small and stupid, as kids are. I suggest that you gotta roll a d10 each time you move a pawn and 1 makes the kid fall over, and die from sniper fire.

There are no snipers!  That was just a dutch guy on waccy-baccy.

So who would take care of the falling children?

They could have mobile phones in case of emergencies

The Polish had calvalry in World War II :D

Somehow this is relevant.

They don't play chess in Poland.

u guys here the post  about how one great player, i believe it was tal, but any ways, he thaught that instead of a queen there should be a combination of a knight and a bishop, a knight and a rook, and a rook and a bishop, sounds fun to me.

No matter how funny it sounds, it's true :-)

Prove it!

And I have something to add to your previous topic about chess for Americans, which was unfortunately closed:

You are not first, not even second. There were many attempts in simplifing chess for Americans. One of the most famous was Los Alamos chess (go google it). For some reason they couldn't catch up the idea behind Bishop, and hell - they were among the brightest minds of America.

I can't accept the proposed restriction on the movements of Bishops - it would ruin the flow of the game. Can I suggest a compromise: an extra piece called, for example, a 'Pope', which can sit at the side of the board taking no active part in the game other than to dispense instant absolution whenever a Bishop 'takes' a pawn.

 No kidding. Are you quite aware of the long history of chess?

Anyway, chess is a classic! As such, nothing can make it better. The Chinese/Indians had it almost perfect thousands (not one hundred!) years ago, and with a couple of tweaks we have todays game.

And would you honestly have it any other way?

Somebody has whacked elephants onto this board.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5321

Actually, the only reason I brought this up was because Taytu Betul, reminded me ofRonaldinho.

Can you spot the difference?

http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/78644374.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193587004028B1CDC4E1A621C0BFBDC7187284831B75F48EF45

http://thenperiod.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/ronaldinho_778138.jpg

 I agree it was a total travesty that the American admins could not take a joke.

My own thoughts:

Kings mean nothing to todays politics. Suggest that kings be sacrificed at earliest opportunity for any advantage whatsoever. Princes are a veritable liability and should be capturable by your own pieces for sport. Queens are generally fat and therefore should take up a 2x2 area on the board.

I think the object of the game should really be to get your bishop close to the other players pawns/children while keeping theirs away from yours. However, if you get your children to the end of the board, they get promoted to adults and file a class action lawsuit against bishops, rendering them as useless as the king, and should then be used as a sacrificial scapegoat and thrown away for any advantage possible.

Knights: These too have been rendered obsolete: who remembers any knights that weren't knighted for their services to cricket? Replace with bomber. Bombers have 3x3 carpet bombing feature.

Castles: I saw some really pretty castles in Europe. They should stay in the game. But they need to be redecorated periodically.

heretic!!!!

I for one do not believe that the rules of chess are the actual and literal word of God and so cannot be modified lest we declare Him to be imperfect.

This is why America is so great: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEIA2j3ZlCg

WARNING: language