Pawn reaches opponents side, you choose which side to take over......ex. you can take over your opponents side. But then you lose your new Queen :)
If you can change a chess rule or create a chess rule, what would it be ?

"rockpeter wrote
Pawn reaches opponents side, you choose which side to take over......ex. you can take over your opponents side. But then you lose your new Queen :)

to be able to promote a pawn to a pawn
Interesting - can you give a position where this would be a good move?
you can take your opponent's pieces of the board, if your opponent catch you, your lose
Hey! So that's not an official rule already?
;)

Ha! check out this link. It's an old forum about free-castling! Believe it or not this used to be part of the standard rules of chess until it got changed to the modern castling rules. The rules in free-castling are exactly the same as the modern castling rules (can't castle out of check, can't castle through check etc, etc) except that in free-castling the king doesn't have to go to g1 & the rook doesn't have to go to f1 (if you castle king-side). Free castling means that when one castles, the king & the rook can end up on various squares, e.g. the rook on e1 and the king on h1 for White in kingside castling, or the king could go to a1 (or b1, c1 etc, etc) & the Rook could go to e1 (or d1 or b1 etc) for queenside castling, these are just a few of the many permutations. Basically put, as long as the White king (for example) moves to the right of the rook for kingside castling, or to the left of the rook for queenside castling & the king and rook do not pass beyond their respective starting squares (e1 and h1 & e1 and a1) during this maneuver the move would be considered legal and playable. All other castling rules would still apply e.g. not castling through, into or out of a check and so forth. Once you've read the article you'll get a better idea of this very interesting rule.
article link Tim Harding's... Kibitzer
http://chesscafe.com/text/kibitz31.txt
Old free-castling forum
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/bring-back-free-castling
The succession rule: a checkmate didnt end the game as long as the checked player retained the queen and the e-pawn, which so became the new king and queen, moving accordingly.
Disguised king rule: before the match starts players attribute the king powers to a piece of choice without telling the opponent - then the objetive is to mate that piece. Add suspense and gives a real use to the question mark on the notations: check?

The succession rule: a checkmate didnt end the game as long as the checked player retained the queen and the e-pawn, which so became the new king and queen, moving accordingly.
just kill someone's e-pawn and queen, that's all
The pieces should be able to do actions by them selves. For example you say rook take e5 and the rook would take e5.

The Kings have the additional ability of converting. How this works is:
The King has the option of converting any piece of the opposite color to the same piece of its own color, if that piece is on one of the squares adjacent to the King (in other words, the squares that the King can normally move to). Doing so costs the player a turn. The only exception to the converting rule is that the King cannot convert a piece that is protected by the other King (protected, as in the piece is on a square adjacent to its own King). This rule prevents situations such as a K+R vs K endgame where, if this rule didn't exist, the two players would just keep converting the rook back and forth.
Ok, I'll attempt at a serious answer to an unserious question...