change one rule in chess
Sort:
I would personally do away with the En Passant rule in chess. It seems to have little logical basis in the game, and there has always been much debate over the validity of the rule.
Jan 4, 2008
0
#3
Well, I love the game as it is, but if I had to change anything I would let the game end with the King actually being taken, rather than checkmated. I've never understood why a game has to stop just before the King gets his comeuppance! 
I second the notion to get rid of En Passant!!! Never understood who came up with that rule and why... it just seems so weird.
En passant, off with her head!
Mine has to to deal with time:
If the person who runs out of time is up in points, then it's a draw.If it's even or down, then it's a loss.
For a 5 year period, with traditional chess tournaments prohibited:
Pawns move like they take ..... and take like they move...
Enter Fischer.
But the en passant can be used to your advantage. What if you play a game where you can win a few moves after performing an en passant, but instead you loose, because en passant isn't part of the game anymore.
I actually like the game how it is and will have to agree with SonofPearl, for the king to actually be taken. It would make a victory that much more fulfilling to strike down the enemy king.
Yeah! Take the king. That way if anyone makes an illegal move and doesn't know it, They're dead!
No more time added or taken or whatever. Just swift justice. Like in some speed chess.
I wish it was illegal for anyone to beat me
Pawn can promote to King!!!
It's a Peasant Revolt.
The King is removed from the board and is relocated to the square of the promoted Pawn.
Chess, like baseball, is beautiful and should not be tinkered with.
When in Pure castled position.... (all three pawns for either side and the rook in his spot)
the 3 pawns can attack an additional rank ahead (the combined threat of a knight and pawn)
this is in the spirit that the Pawns represent archers along the castle wall taking shots at would-be besiegers.
this additional power is lost after the castle structure changes. (which would occur if a piece breaks the castle wall, or after one near/far attack by the archers)
Is not making a rule in chess to prevent people from making/changing rules in chess somewhat hypocritical?
Jan 4, 2008
0
#16
There are already lots of chess variants, so why not have some fun imagining our own little tweaks, even if we'd never really implement them... In that spirit, I'm going to submit that ANY piece should be able to take a pawn 'en passant,' not just another pawn. Given the history of chess and the nature of pawn structure, 'en passant' makes complete sense to me.
In that spirit, I'm going to submit that ANY piece should be able to take a pawn 'en passant,' not just another pawn. Given the history of chess and the nature of pawn structure, 'en passant' makes complete sense to me.
Erik
may i suggest it be called the "Defense of Chess Moves Act". this legislation is necessary to preserve the sanctity of the institution of chess.
i shall excommunicate my Bishops to Pawn status for Blasphemy against Chess.
En passant is a very sensible rule.It gives an opportunity to the advancing ,attacking pawn in the 6th rank to capture the defensive pawn in its first move.It's good that attacking pawn is given an advantage.This rule ensures that the defending pawn cannot bypass the square just ahead ,which is controlled by the attacking pawn.The fact that a pawn can move two squares in its first move,necessitates this rule.
I feel there should be a minimum number of moves to be completed for a game to be drawn by mutual agreement, say 25 or 30 moves to reduce the number of dull friendly draws.
Another rule change I was contemplating is the rule which prevent castling if either the rook or the king had moved.If it comes back to the original position after moving,why shouldn't castling be allowed?
I like the game.. looks very complex and close to the ideal one
If you could change any one rule in chess which would it be? I would change the stalemate rule so that the person who's turn it is to move loses if they cannot make a legal move, like in checkers/draughts. You ?