If You Could Change One Rule In Chess, What Would It Be?

If you're caught cheating you should be disqualified from the tournament and lose your title and be banned.
Oh wait. I forgot.
That's already in effect.

Hans Neimann didn't cheat. Magnus just has an ego problem and has started to regularly lose games against lower GMs.

if i could change a rule i would change that in the case of stalemate, the one having more material wins instead of draw.cuz many time i was like 23 plus material and it ended in a draw(stalemate).

Stalemate doesn't mean the person doing the stalemating was winning:

mg what an impossible situation still in this black should win.

anyway its not possible

stalemate is an old rule which cant be changed

btw thnks for replying

What about here:

If you make either side win this, then the complexity of chess endgames is gone! It gets down to who has 1 more pawn, so nah!

i think u r right

dont take it to heart i was just venting out my frustration of having games draw cuz of this rule

White can avoid stalemate, but only by drawing by repetition. It is an excellent example because it shows that your rule would favor a player that cannot win by any other means. With your rule in place, White has a forced win.

That's the main fallacy with the claims that stalemate should be a win for one of the sides, assuming that the side doing the stalemating is either winning or losing. It can be either way, or even a double dead drawn stalemate:

Not only that but then insufficient mating material wouldn't even apply since checkmate wouldn't even have to be possible! In fact, one side could even force a win with a king and knight if stalemate was a win:

seems like i started a whole new debate just becuz of my frustration of drawing even when i was winning cuz of this rule

lol

No it's fine I just always like addressing this stalemate fallacy when I get the chance!

so nice of u

just checked ur elo i got the idea that u may be 1500plus

can u provide some tricks on my forum too

tips i meant

my forum is

What tips would 1500+ give to 600-1200

Lots of chess cheating goes on.
As to whether Neimann cheated or not - different subject.

En Passant, but not for the reasons you might think. In over 60 years of play I understand the rule and the need for the rule (I jokingly refer to it as “the infield fly rule of chess,” sometimes that is necessary for the integrity of the game). The rule is simple, if a player has moved a pawn to the fifth rank and subsequently his/her opponent moves a pawn up two squares adjacent to your pawn (to avoid capture by you pawn), then you capture that pawn as if it only moved up one square, but you MUST do this on your subsequent move, presumably because if you did not take that pawn, in theory that pawn could now move up one square (the original square, adjacent to your pawn). OK that is the rule, and the way I have explained it to newcomers over the years. But what if you checked your opponent (and even a series of checks). For example at some point I play c5 and you play b2-b4 I now play a check which you have to defend, and now I play another check etc. at no point could you play the pawn up one square to avoid en passant. I would ament the en passant rule to address this situation.