I think chess needs to be updated

I am in no way saying their should not be chess variants, bullet, blitz, rapid, etc.  What i am saying is that classical chess should not change, or be forced to change, sped up, etc.  Because a small percentage of chess players that cant pay attention for any length of time "feels" all of chess needs to be changed for them, and damn everyone else!

To be honest about the last world championship match.  Would i have liked to see more decisive games?  Sure, but only if they are well played, hard fought games.  Having games won, or lost just so they are "exciting" is a stupid.  All that does is cheapen the game, and it cheapens it for the benefit of the person that isn't even a serious chess player.  I think what so many are missing is that their were many hard fought draws.  And unfortunately those games are not being appreciated because they were "boring"

I don't have the solution to the draw "problem"  The one rule i do like is the Sophia Rule.  But who are we to tell people that play chess for a career, depend on it to earn a living, and spend up to 12 hours a day studying/preparing, to change the game so we are "entertained"? 

Its chess...either you enjoy it, or you don't.  But demanding changes to speed it up, so it appeals to people that don't play, or cant pay attention for any length of time?  No...it cheapens the game. 

Just my .02

Reducing classical chess to 2 to 3 hours won't reduce the quality of games much. Modern GMs calculate faster than GMs 30 years ago. They got access to games of their predecessor making modern GMs better in openings,  middle games and endgames and tactics. And home preparation is better than ever with engines and multicore PCs.

FALSE, both Capablanca and Fischer proposed changes in the game. I'm sure they played one or two OTB games in their lives...

Yeah, Lion and Bong talk sense yes?

FALSE, both Capablanca and Fischer proposed changes in the game. I'm sure they played one or two OTB games in their lives...

citation please? what types of changes

I would like a FIDE bullet chess championship.

That's all.

The changes Fischer, and Kasparov wanted were to, in their opinion, maintain the integrity of the game.  The suggestions here, are to make the game more "exciting"  Two different animals.

Also, another reason chess should be updated is because this would require programmers to update their chess engine to fit the new meta. I doubt chess players would buy new chess engines every few months. Thus, this will eliminate cheaters and force them to use their own skills and make chess engines redundant after every few months.

I would like to address some other things this thread has derailed off to.

I don't mind draw offers in chess. Who would want to play out a Rook and 3 pawns vs rook and 3 pawns to the end? The draws in top level isn't a new problem, when you have the top players with similar strength competing against each other you should expect draws. I guess people miss the old days when Kasparov, Fischer, and Capablance dominated entire tournaments.

The update idea was meant to stop the same 5 openings played over and over again. How many times are we going to see another Italian and when's the next time someone is going to play an ambitious opening? The reason Ruy Lopez, and Sicilian is played so often is because they're the best openings by far. Updating chess would change the chess meta so new openings can be played.

It's become a meme among chess lovers that the top players play like engines. They are all playing the same universal and uncreative style. Remember when Bu Xiangzhi sacrificed a bishop against Carlsen? That kind of sacrifice is regularly seen in club games. If this sacrifice was played 50 years ago then it would be normal but now it's considered a brilliancy. Club games have now become more interesting than Carlsen's games by far, club players care less and yet have more ambition. They make "real" sacrifices and play risky openings.

TLDR: club players gud, top players bad

I agree so much. I literally sack something in virtually every game at the 1800 level.

I played through a Paul Morphy game where he had given odds of his queen's knight.
Critical to his win was queen side castling, a move he had due to the lack of the knight.
With a change of rules, say adding the queen can also move like a knight, would spoil hundreds of years of chess.
No Rule Change, thanks.

That's what people said when they introduced castling, en passent, and chess engines.

To make this board game more excited, the game lovers could create a sponsorship for chess variant OTB  tournament.

Some point the top guys will tire of the current fashion...

Expect stuff like the KID, KIA and Scotch game to regain popular

appeal.

Lion has spoken.

I don't want to create a whole new variant, if I do it will have the same flaws as chess. The same 5 openings will be the same and nothing will change. Chess has to update over time to make some openings viable for a few months and then other openings will be more powerful after the next update. The core of chess will be the same.

I think it would be cool if someone made chess an actual board game with real 3d chess pieces- like little horses for the knights and stuff- I mean it's a cool computer game and all, but imagine playing it in real life! Why has no one done that yet?

Capablanca himself advocated Capablanca Chess variant. The variant didn't get a stable fanbase back in the "Good Ol' Days" because for the oldtimers, classic chess was always on the agenda. This is still the case presently. No-one takes variants with bigger boards and new pieces seriously. Variants with new pieces is fun and challenging.