I say that they should remove the Stalemate rule.
Some say that Stalemate is the ultimate zugzwang and so it should be considered as a loss for the stalemated player. Other say that abolishing stalemate the game would become much more materialistic and therefore less interesting.
I think when a pawn gets to the eighth rank, it should be able to remain a pawn.
I'm pretty sure that in Makruk (Thai Chess) pawns become whatever that "row's piece" is, i.e., pawn on d8 becomes a queen, but pawn on a8 becomes a rook, and pawn on b8 becomes a knight, etc.
The e-row pawn promotes to queen --- kings have that Highlander thing going on... (THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE, AND IT'S ME!!!)
I say that they should remove the Stalemate rule.
What happens in a stalemate position?
I think this thread serves as an excellent argument of why the established rules of chess shouldn't be changed because of a poll on an Internet forum :p
To the OP: a draw is a draw. What does it matter how it is reached?
I say that they should remove the Stalemate rule.
What happens in a stalemate position?
I suppose the stalemated King has to step into the LASER (best suggestion so far)
I'd remove the right to castle. We would then see some real chess, for a few years, until the top players develop chicken-hearted techniques to reduce the risks.
I would make it that the winner got to eat all the peices, and they would taste like chicken.
I would rulethat on its first move a pawn would be allowed to move back vertically or diagonally into a vacated square to improve defensive role; also any choice of wine should go with the chicken pieces.
Heinzie, I completely agree with your point about the lasers.
C'mon..you guys know my knights would be kick-ass!!
I wouldn't change chess rules, but if I had to, I'd change the least relevant one. I'd get rid of en passant.
People already play equal amount of games as black and as white in tournaments, so it's pretty even.
I'd have it so that you could take your own peices. Sometimes i think if i could just take my own pawn with my Queen i'd win within a couple of moves.
I think it is tricky enough to promote pawns without also thinking about what it will become. Though I think it would be interesting in certain endgames if your first promoted pawn was a knight or bishop, then the second one is a rook, the third a queen...
My suggestion was more in keeping in the spirit of a war game. Your opponent captures your "men" and then you can free them. Turning a pawn into just any random piece is, well, just random. Anyway, it was just a thought. I actually like the fact that it involves more thought when promoting your pawns.
in the spirit of war games promoting the pawn to a Queen is like a soldier starting off as a raw recruit but after a while he's in the SAS
I vote for gray pieces. two per side that line up in the ranks of white or black. a third neutral player gets to control the four gray pieces in any way they wish, including attacking the color they originally lined up with.
the black and white players are allowed to coerce the gray player in anyway they wish including threats and bribes.
we can call it "gorilla warfare" chess
i have a legitimate suggestion, imho... when castling queen-side, make it the same as castling king-side... isn't it lovely...
If I could remove or change a rule it would be that 50 moves rule after all the pawns are captured. I would allow as many moves as needed to checkmate.
Also, in Ahhca's example Kxf7 would save him to a certain degree.