change one rule in chess
Sort:
This has happened too frequently ! Please do something about it.
I would make a rule against hiding captured pieces in one's hands. All captured pieces must be placed on the side of the board opposite the clock and unobstructed. That way, when low on time, a player can more easily and quickly assess material count. Until that day, though, I'm going to keep a pawn or two hidden.
SonofPearl wrote: 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!
This would be a close second for me; my first choice being allowed to castle out of check (although the castleing through check rule should remain).
Chess is a perfect game! The rules as they stand should never be changed. Capablanca tried to invent a new chess game, adding two more pieces, the Archbishop and the Unicorn plus two additional pawns infront when he was invincible. He thought chess as it stood was too simple. He changed his attitude when he lost his crown to Alekhine.
Fair trades:
Eg: Take 2 knights and a bishop off the board and put a queen on the board
silentfilmstar13 wrote: I would make a rule against hiding captured pieces in one's hands. All captured pieces must be placed on the side of the board opposite the clock and unobstructed. That way, when low on time, a player can more easily and quickly assess material count. Until that day, though, I'm going to keep a pawn or two hidden.
You should always count whats on the board , NOT whats off the board.
I realize, but in a blitz game, things are hectic and fast. Sometimes it's faster to count what's on the board by subtracting what's off the board. I just think that in a straight-forward, everything in the open, gentlemanly game like chess, it's a shame that players palm a pawn in hopes that their opponents will make an ill-advised decision when the clocks are low. I happen to like the rules of the game the way they are. So, if I had to choose something, well, that's about it.
Jimmyjoke wrote:
I would change the points system, it has no real meaning to the outcome as to who wins or who doesnt.
It has no impact either, so what exactly is your issue? There is no "points system" in the rules of a chess game. So what are you going to change?
Ok so what is a timed game with points per piece all about?
Jimmyjoke wrote: Ok so what is a timed game with points per piece all about?
After playing for more than 3 decades, I have not the faintest idea what you refer to... please explain. The "points" thing is just a guide/rule of thumb to allow quick materialistic evaluation of a position, and absolutely nothing to do with the rules.
I see thank you.
does anybody have some input on some of the old chess rules? as i understand, chess rules are constantly changing but at the same speed as the catholic church. i remember hearing that 300-400 years ago the bishops were less powerful (in chess). maybe we should go old school for a little while... I'm going to get medieval on yo ass.
Jan 5, 2008
0
#73
"does anybody have some input on some of the old chess rules?"
http://sbchess.sinfree.net/murray.html
rexbo wrote: i agree with the time rule being that if you are up points then it's a draw. also i believe that a king should be able to move in to check if the piece that preforms the check is pinned to his king. But in this being said if a king does do this then the other player has the option of drawing by killing the opposing king with the pinned piece then the king may be killed by the pinning piece.
I'm not sure if I agree with the draw-forcing idea, but I like the notion of limiting check to legal moves. This is the first suggestion here so far that I've thought was a good idea, though I doubt anything will be changing any time soon.
> http://sbchess.sinfree.net/murray.html
Fascinating; especially the parts about stalemate and castling. Silman wrote in an article that, while travelling in India, a particular shop owner allowed kings to leap once in an L-shape (similar to the knight) but didn't allow castling. I guess (from reading your article) that king-leaping is historically accurate, but L-shaped leaps are not!
If I could change one rule I would give the queen the additional capability of not only moving as a bishop and rook, but adding being able to move as a knight.
I strongly disagree with those who made comments against en passant.Its a very logical rule for those who know the importance of pawn structure/destructure.
If a rule is to be changed i think it would be stalemate.It makes no sense.Its just a painful way of forcing a draw on the stronger player when the weaker one has legally lost the game.
fischer wrote: 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?
Getting a pawn up to the 5th rank isn't terribly tough. And on the note of fairness.. well, that pawn on the 5th rank has just got 3 more squares to go whereas the starting/opposing pawn (which landed beside him on that 5th rank) has got 4 happy hops ahead of him!
En passant seems like a rule made by some greedy higher-up is alls I'm saying.
Jaws_2 wrote:
Getting a pawn up to the 5th rank isn't terribly tough.
It's a lot tougher than not moving a pawn at all.
And on the note of fairness.. well, that pawn on the 5th rank has just got 3 more squares to go whereas the starting/opposing pawn (which landed beside him on that 5th rank) has got 4 happy hops ahead of him!
Thank you for your support. This is all the more reason why en passant is necessary. The player who hasn't even moved his pawn shouldn't be able to create a freebie passer.
En passant seems like a rule made by some greedy higher-up is alls I'm saying.
Others might say that en passant is a rule not understood by naive lower-downs.