If you could change 1 chess rule....

Sort:
Avatar of Fear_ItseIf

Silence.

There should be trashtalking in the game, like the hustler blitz games at washington park. 

Avatar of plutonia

3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw was done in the Bilbao Chess Masters Final. I thought it made it more interesting.

 

But that didn't prevent Anand for drawing everything anyway (9 draws and 1 loss).

Avatar of cferrel

The move before notate rule was due to the monroi where I could in theory analyse my games on my electronic board. 

Avatar of NimzoRoy


Why 3 times, why not call it a draw after the first repetition?

Because there are too many GD draws as it is - DOH! One of the ideas (if not necessarily an original intention) of the 3x rule is that you can gain time on the clock by repeating the same position TWICE with the same player to move. Bet you never thought of that one huh?

Avatar of Tin-Cup

Change the castling rules back to free castling! If you don't know what free castling is, please read the forum topic titled, Bring Back Free Castling!! This rule actually used to be the way players castled before they changed it to our modern rules. Free castling is so cool!

Avatar of splitleaf
AnthonyCG wrote:
splitleaf wrote:

When a pawn is ready to promote you should be able to just put the desired piece on that square (instead of having to move the pawn there first) and then remove the little hero from the board to celebrate with its teammates.

 

There have been disputes about queening. This arbiter actually punished a player for not doing just that.

 

Not sure who I feel worse for, the one who got ruled against, or the one who complained about this!

Avatar of rooperi
NimzoRoy wrote:


Why 3 times, why not call it a draw after the first repetition?

Because there are too many GD draws as it is - DOH! One of the ideas (if not necessarily an original intention) of the 3x rule is that you can gain time on the clock by repeating the same position TWICE with the same player to move. Bet you never thought of that one huh?

That's exactly my problem with it, we're here to play chess, not silly buggers.

Avatar of VanillaKnightPOC

If you hang your queen you get executed, that'll teach them not to be so careless with her majesty.

Avatar of Nostrildamus

I'd get rid of the touch-move rule for sure.

Avatar of vpugen

The Stalemate rule should really be sacked

Avatar of Martin0

If there would be no stalemate I would probably timeout, but before that I would get the arbeiter and say that my opponent is playing to win on time and not on mate and I will get declared a draw.

Avatar of plutonia

those who don't agree with the stalemate rule don't understand the beauty of chess.

Being able to resist even in the most desperate situations is what makes chess so intense. It also allows for more aggresive play sacrificing a pawn in the middle game, as theorically a K + P vs K can be defended.

Avatar of blake78613
plutonia wrote:

those who don't agree with the stalemate rule don't understand the beauty of chess.

Being able to resist even in the most desperate situations is what makes chess so intense. It also allows for more aggresive play sacrificing a pawn in the middle game, as theorically a K + P vs K can be defended.

So you are saying that Emanuel Lasker and Aaron Nimzovich didn't understand the beauty of chess.  Do you have any authority for your statement or did you just make it up?

Avatar of ErrantDeeds

Introduce 'Community Chest' and 'Chance' decks of cards. Lost a piece? Pay £200 to the bank and go straight to jail. 

Avatar of rooperi

Oh, but they have. 'm not talking about the way pieces move:

eg, in the 80's and 90's there were exceptions to the 50 move rule, that's been changed back

rule 10.2 in it's current form (about claiming draws in time trouble) is less than 10 years old, I'm sure there are more...

Avatar of Mr_Spocky

Mr_Spocky wins everytime

Avatar of KeyserSzoze

I would ban 1. d4 :)

Avatar of plutonia
blake78613 wrote:
plutonia wrote:

those who don't agree with the stalemate rule don't understand the beauty of chess.

Being able to resist even in the most desperate situations is what makes chess so intense. It also allows for more aggresive play sacrificing a pawn in the middle game, as theorically a K + P vs K can be defended.

So you are saying that Emanuel Lasker and Aaron Nimzovich didn't understand the beauty of chess.  Do you have any authority for your statement or did you just make it up?

 

In a quick search on google the only claim that those 2 players wanted to abolish stalemate is...from your posts in the stalemate thread.

Avatar of rooperi

Bobby, I dont want to change basic rules, I'm talking about unnecesarily nitpicking little rules.

Avatar of macer75

Pawns should be able to promote to a piece that has the same moves as a king, but functions as a regular piece (can be captured).