If you could change 1 chess rule....

en passant has to go....I get sick and tired of having to explain this rule to beginners....it's like they have this dear in head lights expression whenever I try to explain to em

That's really stretching it, Martin! 

"The road to progress is lined with a thousand guardians of the past."  - 12th century philosopher!  

What would most of the world's progress look like if we were to toe the line of 'how things are done?'  Oh, the arrogance and silliness of certainty that there is only one right way to do things.  In 500 years, I'm sure each year chess had it's staunch defenders of "it's perfect now."

Lasker's idea to score stalemate as partial win was published in My Match with Capablanca. it is quoted in 200 Open Games by David Bronstein.  It has been close to 50 years since I read Nimzovich's arguments that stalemate should be scored as a win, and I don't remember the book; but I an looking for it and will cite the source when I find it. 

If your current endgame books don't take take stalemate possiblities into consideration you should throw them out now, as they are worthless under the current rules.

It could be fun if pawns could be promoted to grasshoper or nightrider like in fairy chess... With my friends, we also tried a starting position with 4 grasshopers, 2 whites on d0 and e0 (!) and 2 blacks on d9 and e9 (!), yeah, behind the queen and the king. UUff really a wild game!... Each one valued about 6 points, or rook + pawn. It's really something fun to try... 

bobyyyy, the stalemate rule is really irritiating and it results in lost games in good positions. Your thought about chess endings in worth considering though, but we can always apply our own mind and figure out alternative endings.

The stalemate can result in lost games? I haven't heard that argument before. Weather not stalemate should be win or draw can be possible to discuss, but I don't understand how you want to get rid of the rule as the game cannot make progress. Anyway I think it is good that stalemate results in a draw. Do you really think black should win in this stalemate?

Ok, I know this is odd. But it would make my life a lot easier if it was allowed to put your own king in check so that the opponent could simply win by taking it in case of such a blunder.

Lulz, every single endgame is based or involves the fact that the enemy king can stop the enemy pawn if it's in the favourable position.

Poor white should have timeout resulting in a draw by insufficient material instead of making a move here then.

What's interesting to me here is that in discussions elsewhere, the opponents of either a stalemate rule or scoring change claimed that such changes would make play much more materialistic. I agreed that *if* that were the case, then proponents for change like me, would have to give up the ghost.

Yet, here is a clear, albeit ridiculous (impossible, maybe?) counterexample to their argument. White has an embarrasment of material riches, but Black has made the last legal move. As few seem interested in letting a side move twice or more in a row, proponents of rule/score change maintain that the last legal mover be rewarded and the side left without be punished, instead of the even opportionment as is now.

Cousin Checkers gives a full win in this case, but seems Draconion in the vastly more complex holy pursuit that is our Chess. That leaves either the previously mentioned frowned upon change in move ordering, or a scoring change from .5-.5 to something like .75-.25 in favor of the last legal mover.

I've also previously acceded that the current rules, though somewhat illogical, are here to stay via actio popularis. That steers us to chessic variants. If we were to follow this to its logical conclusion, some form of Dynamic Scoring would cover this in its umbrella.

I just thought it interesting there was a clear counterexample to supposedly more chess-learned parties assertion that a Stalemate rule/scoring change would make the game much too materialistic, which is something none of us want, but most likely wouldn't have to fear as shown in the position above.

And @Martin0, if White timed out prior to Promoting, wouldn't that be a clear loss, as White surely has sufficent material to mate, despite his ridiculous position? And if White timed out in the Stalemate position, I can assume you're proposing that Stalemate was neither claimed or enforced, wouldn't this, too, be a loss? I think the answer to the prior is clear cut, but I'm not supposing that White should time out in the latter, and I don't think you are either. I'll leave that for a well know poster on that topic.

Mr_Spocky never loses

If your timer runs out and no sequence of legal moves can lead you to become mated then it will be declared a draw by insufficient material. As white is forced to take blacks last piece black doesn't have material to mate the white king, so therefor it would be a draw (Black could have a queen on g8 and it would still be considered a draw by insufficient material, although I doubt the right result would appear in live chess). If white have material to mate black or not doesn't matter. If black would timeout white would win as black is not forced to play Kxg8 (unless an arbiter makes it a draw).

I think it would be kind of ridiculous that running out of time can be better than making a move (which it would be in my example if stalemate would result in a win for the player with the last move). Adding that timeout always result in a loss would solve that, but I think most player like the insufficient material rule.

Allowing to pass the move could get rid of the stalemate rule. If both players passes the threefold repetition can be used to claim to a draw (after 4 passes). I really like the stalemate rule as it though as opposition and draws by stalemate makes the game more interesting. I think it is mostly beginners that seem unable to avoid stalemate when they are ahead a lot in material that dislike the rule. Having said that I have also accidently made a stalemate sometimes.

I'd do away completely with Monroi devices for recording moves. This isn't a problem in FIDE, but in USCF events, it is.

Please see the post "Bring Back Free Castling!" & prepare to have your mind blown....This really used to be part of the standard rules of chess, but for some strange reason it's not anymore?! Author Tim Harding also thinks that it should be brought back too!

I tried a variation called "gun-chess" (!) with a friend. It's the sames rules except one, the capture-rule. In this variation, when a piece or pawn takes an ennemi's piece, it doesn't take its place but stays in his square! It is "shooting" the ennemi's piece (never miss!). Example: 1- e2-e4, e7-e5    2- Ng1-f3, Qd8-f6   3-Nxe5 the e5 pawn disappears but the knight stays on f3, Qxf3, the knight disappears but the queen remains in f6... and so on... The shoot counts as a move. Crazy! but fun to play. (in french we call it "échecs-fusil")

I think both sides should win as long as they both try their best...