I think chess needs to be updated

I think chess needs updates. Every few months FIDE should update the rules of chess this way we can change the chess meta (most effective tactic available or the best thing to do after the most recent update, the meta can change after each update). For hundreds of years chess has been the same. The last major update was to include clocks to chess, other than that chess has been the exact same.

The only reason we see Sicilian and Ruy Lopez in the top tournaments is because that's the meta in chess right now and it always will be unless we change the rules of chess. Sicilian and Ruy Lopez are simply too strong, if it works for the top players then club players will simply copy them. It's simple trickle down economics. If chess were to be updated, for example when kingside castling your rook would go to e1/e8 automatically. This would change the chess meta so that openings like the Evans Gambit will be stronger and other e4 openings can benefit but it depends on the variation, on the other hand openings like the Dutch will be weaker and thus this changes the meta. If chess were to be updated then players would need to learn how to adapt to the current meta and learn new openings. This way we can see new openings played at a higher level every month. For example, the meta could be that openings like the King's gambit and the Leningrad are currently the strongest, we will see top GMs play new openings instead of exclusively play the same 3 openings.

This will benefit chess tremulously. First of all, it will reward players for keeping up with the updates and punish players will refuse to adapt. Secondly, we will see GMs learn new openings and plans to fit the current meta. Lastly, chess is dying at an alarming rate and has a competitive scene that no one cares about, I think updating chess every now and then will save this dying board game.

My proposal. In Super GM events, one can use openings or defenses TWICE only. After playing the Berlin Wall TWICE, the defending player must use other variation of the Ruy Lopez. Similarly boring opening system like Colle and London system can be used TWICE only.

While the Chinese have played Mahjongg under the same rules for centuries, when the game started being played in America, the federation there for that game made a list of winning hands that changed every year. So something like this has happened.

I think there is a need for changes to Chess to address the draw issue, but I have to admit that I don't feel any enthusiasm for this particular suggestion. There are still lots of openings being played - and indeed, the Sicilian and the Ruy Lopez are both King's Pawn openings; Queen's Pawn openings are still more common.

Majority of chess fans doesn't appreciate Chess 960. Less than 10% of chess.com members play it. The problem in SuperGM events are limited openings are played. I change my original proposal to playing ONCE the opening.

Nothing is wrong. One small adjustment: abolishing the draw offer could be tested (like Sofia rule)

Chess is rich after all. 

I think chess960 is the solution. Anyway changing the rules is a really crazy idea and will cause the lack of popularity of chess because there are not so many people who wish to learn new rules every month. Also I think current chess rules are great for everyone who is not in the top grand master's league (99 % of chess players).

Don’t like chess960 at all, according to my experience the majority don’t want it as well. There are hardly any tournaments left in Germany. It‘s a variation for a tiny minority - it won’t prevail.

OK, I suggest playing chess960 matches for the World Champion title but other games will be played in an ordinary way. I think this idea could be interesting and would bring more attention to the chess than current Wch does.

I don't mind GM games ending in draws after 30 moves. But I hate seeing multiple Berlin Wall games being played. Ruy Lopez have many variations. There was a time multiple English Attack games being played in a tournament.

The Sicilian has been a problem in the chess competitive scene for years. It's just that no one in the FIDE had the guts to deal with it. Former president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov successfully distracted the public from this issue by resorting to the old and tested "alien abduction" story. However, there is a new sheriff in the town, and I hope Mr. Dvorkovich will be brave in his crusade against the overpowered Sicilian. Whether it's better to outright ban it or just nerf it, that's something that still needs to be discussed.

Most suggestions to address the draw rate are pretty bad. A lot of players don't understand how chess works. For example they don't know why getting rid of stalemate would greatly reduce middlegame strategy making chess much less of a game. They don't know why 960 would reduce the depth of chess, how some 960 positions give white a big advantage, and how some 960 positions would lead to boring openings by force. They don't know that the sofia rules can be easily avoided by a 3 move repetition. In the Chinese league there are rules where games must last a certain amount of time, so when they want a draw the players will just sit there for an hour before drawing. It's silly.

---

First of all, I think FIDE should make some kind of committee, and involve the top 100 players, or everyone with a 2700+ rating. They could ask them for ideas, and poll them.

---

As for my suggestion, I'd like to see FIDE pick ~5 positions from chess 960 to be used for 1-3 years. First engines would throw out all 960 positions that aren't close to equal. 2nd humans would narrow down the set to maybe 50 based on aesthetics and complexity, and then finally FIDE would give that ~50 position set to GMs to vote, and the best 5 would be selected for that cycle.

Then before a game starts, 1 of the 5 are randomly selected.

Also time controls would not allow a game to last 5-7 hours. Like it or not top GMs are just too good, even at 960. I don't know what an appropriate time control is, professionals would have a good sense for it, but all this 30 second increment, 3 time control nonsense should stop IMO.

Players should have the right to choose what opening they want... otherwise a luck element is brought in.

Get rid of handshake draws... i know there is 3 move rep but am sure the draw rate would decrease.

Agree with GhostHorse on shorter game... get rid of increment and give them a straight 2 or 3hrs. Simple is best...

960 solves everything. And high draw rates can be decreased by adding shorter time controls

960 has multiple flaws.

Nearly 20yrs after the ghastly Berlin defence was revived... and nobody has found a refuting line?!

If you keep changing the rules, chaos reigns.

Some rules that have been changed in the 1800's or later, like incremental time per move, stalemate being a draw, or white moving first, could be changed without a major change in how the game is played.  But rules pertaining to how the Pieces move or are intially placed would not be needed.

Changing stalemate would change a lot more than if we changed how the pieces are initially placed... changing the initial setup barely changes anything, however we should do it in a way that doesn't completely remove all opening preparation and opening theory, because that would diminish the depth of the game.

Getting rid of stalemate as a draw diminishes the depth even more though because it's intimately linked to middlegame strategy.

2 to 3hrs, no increment. 

Lion has spoken. 

Outright banning the Sicilian is necessary for the longevity of chess for now. Once FIDE starts updating chess then we can lift the ban of the Sicilian. However, I don't think Sicilian should be banned entirely, just the Najdorf. This way we can watch actual interesting Sicilian openings like the Sveshnikov, Kan, or any other Sicilian that Emory Tate has played.