change one rule in chess

Stability is important for chess. However, the en passant rule was a change in the past. When pawns could only move one square, the rule change allowed them to advance two squares at first. People must have been saying, "I used to be able to capture that pawn when it moved one square." The answer was, "You still can, and on the same square." The proposed rule that a pawn should be allowed to promote to a king has already been used in my multiple (2 or 3) board game, which starts with one set per board and multiple kings. The boards are considered one. The proposed pawn promotion to a queen that possesses the knight move also does not create a new piece unless used in standard chess. That piece is a commander which was used in power chess which was played on a 10x10 board. It started with two queens and a commander. The commander could give mate without any helpers and could outplay two queens.

I don't like the 50-move rule for two reasons: (a) Sometimes an endgame is dead drawn and yet one player wanders in circles for fifty moves and (b) Some endgames require more than 50 moves even according to a tablebase.

Once Monrois become inexpensive and ubiquitous, perhaps we could use computer assistance to shorten and lengthen endgames appropriately based on how many moves a tablebase says they should take (plus a few extra moves since humans are not computers and humans may play profoundly but not perfectly).

alright, don't laugh at me, I just dan't know this 'cause I'm pretty new to the game... what the heck is "en passant"?

I won't laugh at you, this here is 'en passant'

The rules governing en passant are:

The capture can only be made when the opponent moves that particular pawn off of its starting square two spaces. 

You must capture immediately.  If you make another move, you cannot capture en passant later on.

Look up en passant on wikipedia for more info.

I've personally always had a problem with agreed draws.  I know this has been the source of much debate and there are no easy answers to it, but it fries me when two players take the 1/2 point even though the game is still very much in the air.  The only suggestion I've heard that can address this problem is that if a player offers a draw, the opposing player may accept it then, or at any other point in the match after the offer was made.  This will curtail players offering draws for dumb or impulsive reasons (protecting ratings, intimidated by the position, etc).  I know draw by agreement has its place, but I know also that a lot of players use it in ways it was never intended to be used. 

I believe there's a difference between playing for a draw and offering draws, because at least by playing for a draw you're still competing.  But by offering draws to, say, protect points, seems to run against the spirit of competition.  Anyway, that's my two cents.

Ray_Brooks> I am not a rules expert, but I believe that in the case of K N N Vs K P the 50 move rule is extended.

Well, yes and no! From 1984 to 1992 there were extensions, but in 1992 they abolished the practice and now all games must end in 50 moves. The basic problem was they couldn't list all the exceptions on a sheet of paper. Here's an excerpt from "The Arbiter":

Answer: In the FIDE Laws of Chess, published in 1984 and 1988, you will find that the 50-move rule is extended to 75 moves for the following positions:

(a) King + Rook + Bishop against King + Rook; (b) King + 2 Knights against King + pawn; (c) King + Queen + pawn one square
from promotion against King + Queen; (d) King + Queen against King + 2 Knights; (e) King + Queen against King + 2 Bishops; and
(f) King + 2 Bishops against King + Knight

In 1992 during the FIDE Congress in Manila the Rules Committee suggested establishing one rule for all endings: 50 moves. The
General Assembly of FIDE approved this. The same happened in 1996 during the congress in Yerevan.

Here is my rule change. 

 Board setup:

maybe they are like the kings' messengers or something.  

I agree

Rather than changing the rules, why not change the style.  Modernize the pieces.  Pawns=Infantry, instead of calling it a "promotion" when they reach the other side of the board call it a "reclass", Rooks=Tanks, powerful but impractical in close-quarters combat (yes, I am aware that a castle or tower represents Engineers but they do not qualify as combat arms and the movement of the piece is brute force), Bishops=Artillery, indirect fire assets (sorry, I know thats corny), Knights=Cavalry, able to overcome most obstacles and most players already unwittingly apply the Fundamentals of Recon when using this piece, Queen=Aviation (specifically combat air assets), there is no denying the power and importance of aviation, and the King=Public Opinion (of the conflict), those who have served or watch the news know exactly what I mean, if you don't then you are either too young to grasp this or you are too stupid to realize it.

Ignorance kills, Wisdom elevates

Because she is already powerful enough, although you may like Cavalry Chess if you think that's a good idea.  The rules can be found on CavHooah.com

What if when the King dies a council of the pawns is held and they take a vote to decide which piece they wish to be their new King. Meanwhile the opposing player thinks they have won so their pieces drink wine and make merry, and now the bishops move like knights, the rooks move like pawns, and knights weild their swords accidentally killing everything on adjacent squares.

Oops... my post reads like a 3 word forum thread.

Hmm, OK. Then why not make her less powerful and disallow to go diagonally. Oh, but then she would become a Rook. Dang!

Hey, I don't want to change the rules either. They should stay as they are. I was merely answering the initial post by dreaming something up.

 Correct.

I think it was assumed, however, that the usual rules regarding Kings in check would be abolished. If a King could remain in check and move into check, then the game would become one where the King is captured and not mated. Believe it or not, this is how my sister and I used to play when we were first learning.

 There has been no debate over the "validity" of en passant.

There is nothing of the sort mentioned in the wikipedia article.

Two pawns of differing color, on adjacent files, positioned two ranks apart limit each other's movement. This is because if either were to move, the pawn could be captured. When they added the initial two-square pawn move, it was to speed up the game. It was not to change the basic nature and peculiarities of pawns. The en passant rule, therefore, needed to be added to ensure that this would go unchanged. Fischer also made a good point about how easy it would be to create a passed pawn if this rule were not in effect.

I would change the points system, it has no real meaning to the outcome as to who wins or who doesnt. If I take someones queen I could have 9 points, and the other player has 0. The following moves cost me a checkmate. Meaning I lost the game but i had 9 points over my player?????? I understand there a good guidance as to which pice is better but A pice in a good postion is worth more then its points allocated.