Where did you hear this?
That's like saying there's always been much debate over traveling in basketball.
change one rule in chess
Sort:
Unbeliever wrote: 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.
soramamar wrote:
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.
Finally, somebody who understands the reason for the en passant rule. Without it, a player (in the right situation) could create a deadly passed pawn by moving 2 squares forward, which would be highly unfair to the opponent who worked very hard to get his own pawn all the way up to the 5th rank.
Somebody said that en passant isn't logical and that "there has always been much debate over the validity of the rule." By whom? The ignorant?
Kami5909 wrote: Unbeliever wrote: 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.
Where did you hear this?
That's like saying there's always been much debate over traveling in basketball.
I was referring to the historical basis of En Passant. Use wikipedia and just search"En Passant".
Kami5909 wrote:Unbeliever wrote: 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.
Where did you hear this?
That's like saying there's always been much debate over traveling in basketball.
I was thinking the same thing. (Looks like we posted at around the same time.) 
Allow pawns one move back per game.
a) You must take the enemy king without losing yours to win the game.
b) You can play 1 more move after your king is taken.
c) If both kings are taken, the game is drawn.
The King can voluntarily enter Check, if the piece checking the King is pinned to the opponent's King.
I'd get rid of castling. :)
I'd leave the change to Kasparov. He wouldn't make rules dissapear.
En Passant is crap. Nobody uses it and very few people know how to use it in anyway.
The_Grinning_Reaper wrote: En Passant is crap. Nobody uses it and very few people know how to use it in anyway.
You are obviously NOT a serious chess player. Serious chess players know about en passant and use it.
I'm about as serious as can be Reb, - One more beer and I'll even challenge you!
Ok Ok, I concede I'm stupid and I don't know how to use it....
How about disallowing a pawn promoting to a queen? This would force the player to employ a bit more strategy than steamrollering their opponent with queens.
Hmm. But then people would just default to rooks... I dunno.
When a pawn queens it gains the power of a queen and a knight combined !
Talk about complex play after pawn queening. That would make passed pawns even more valuable .-SIX
How about this: Let's make the queen able to move like a knight in addition to her other moves. That would be interesting.
I would allow the knights to move one move further in the same direction. So in addition to the L shape they can move in a bigger L shape. But the intermediate square must be empty. So from a1 a knight could move to b3, c2, c5, and e3. But it can only move to c5 if b3 is empty and to e3 if c2 is empty. I think this would make the knight as powerful as the rook, maybe more.
Jan 4, 2008
0
#39
en passant is historically viable, intrinsically logical and absolutely necessary.
Capturing the King seems is illogical because it's impossible. Before a King can be actually captured, he must be attacked. If he's attacked, he must be in check. If he's in check, he must move. If he can't move, i.e. checkmated, then the mated player can make no other move (he must move out of check). If the mated player can't move, then how can the mating player even gain the opportunity to actually capture the King?
Jan 4, 2008
0
#40
The great thing about games is that if all the participants agree, then anything goes. Those of you who want rule changes, start playing that way with friends, host tournaments, and maybe one day in the distant future your rule will be universally accepted. Untill then I love it the way it is.
By the way if you take away en passant then we must only allow pawns to move 1 space on their first move. I know someone mentioned this but I'm rearticulating.
graceful hypocracy is one of the hallmarks of truly great men.