How about a new kind of time limit... When your opponent runs out of time, you get to move again, as in twice in a row. I suppose it could make for some interesting zugzwang-type applications, so if the second player lets her clock run down to nothing also, it's an immediate draw.
To be clear, I think this would stink as a 'changed rule' but might be a semi-interesting variant in the world of online correspondence chess.
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.
wh ythank you i though it was a nice addition. but i think the idea of being able to force the draw is relevent because in battle if the royal on both side's were slain in battle the soldiers would be inclined to retreat and form a new hierachy. but as you said it probably will not change. p.s thanks for the comments.
I think if a player is up Q and rook against lone king that IS a winning position with correct play. However, due to the pressure of the clock I have seen accidental stalemates. Do you really think Q and rook against lone king isnt a "winning position" ? I believe the rule in checkers is more logical, that if its your move and you cannot make a legal move , you lose. The down side to this would be that it would make all K+p vs K endings won for the one with the pawn..."with correct play".
I strongly support the en passant rule for the reasons enumerated by soramamar.
If there is one rule which should be brought in, it is that en passant should be extended to other pieces as well, like the bishop, rook , knight and queen.
The one rule I would change is
white moves first
why does white always move first what wrong with black moving first?
I agree with changing a stalemate from a draw to a loss for the player that can't move... only 'cause I've been burned by that too many times (bad end game player).
My wife would change the rule about castling through or out of check.
You are obviously NOT a serious chess player. Serious chess players know about en passant and use it.
what is en passant??? pass pawn?
That would make the knight extremely powerful; ridiculously powerful. Get that piece anywhere in the same quadrant as the enemy king, and you've won.
the King are immortal just like me! Or if i'm not immortal, i'm at least an advance evolutionary super-human! Even if you take the King's head he still comes back for the next game.
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)
Jeez, this is a fun quiz right or did I miss something?