I think chess needs to be updated

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

Chess is rich after all. 

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.

More of..."Chess needs to be changed..."

A game that hasn't been solved, man hasn't mastered, is still full of positions that have never been reached, ideas that haven't been tried....and yet...it needs to be "changed"

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.

960 has multiple flaws.

I honestly couldn't care less about your opinion

    1800 players know 95% of chess!!!Really? That's the biggest joke this year but this is exactly the problem.

. . .

It's not my opinion, I carefully explained it.

I honestly couldn't care less about your ignorance.

And this is why I keep deleting accounts... people here are too stupid to understand most of what I say... so tell me why I should keep coming here.

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.

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.

Have you been off your meds huh?

After I realize they're a troll it's fine