The touch piece move piece is the one I would change. It's a bit childish.
I hope this is sarcasm =)
Personaly I think actually touching the piece dosen't go far enough. I say hovering your hand over a piece for even a half second constitutes being forced to move it.
What if I stare at my queen with lewd intent for 1.5 milliseconds?
even thinking about a piece constitutes it being touched by your mind.
A lot of guys think that.
If Uri Geller played, he could analyse positions many moves deep on the board without touching anything.
If Uri Geller played, he could analyse positions many moves deep on the board without touching anything.
So what I can do that too.
A coin toss determines whether Black or White makes the first move
I've always taken a pawn from each side, one per hand , shuffled them behind my back and let the other player choose, white or black, same as a coin toss, but white always goes first, always has.
There's a really interesting article on chesscafe.com titled Bring Back Free Castling! that's in the archives section for The Kibitzer column which is written by Tim Harding. It argues that modern castling rules should be changed back to the old "free castling" rules. 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. Harding argues that this rule would make chess even more interesting and would add more dynamism & strategy without radically altering the character of the game or board like so many chess variants do. (bughouse chess, progressive chess, 3-D chess, loser's/suicide/giveaway chess, Fischer random/chess360 etc) And just to reiterate, free castling was the standard way of castling before the modern rules were introduced & the old Italian rules were let go, so changing the rules is not as radical as some would think. Check out the article and post your thoughts!
avi97 wrote:
get rid of the 50 move repition to 25 move repetition
Very bad rule change. How are you supposed to mate with a K+B+N vs lone king in less than 25 moves?
It should really be extended to 100 moves, thus allowing more K+N+N vs. K+P checkmates. Because there are situations where the pawn can be stopped early enough to forcibly checkmate the enemy King, but checkmate takes longer than 50 moves to achieve.
How about in the game when it is your move you can Knight a pawn that is right next to the king.
So the pawn next to the king becomes a Knight and that is your move.
Here is an example.
What do you think?
Adding such a rule makes about as much sense as the en passant rule does - not a lot. It works in a practical sense, so I say why not?
It would make K+P endgames much more interesting.
Or, maybe it could be a prerequisite that the pawn in question needs to have captured a certain amount of material beforehand, ie. has to have proved itself in battle before it can be knighted?
Love the free castling idea.
A pawn reaching the last rank is given additional options: stay a pawn, promote to a king, or vanish.
Chess Rox!
If I could change one rule in chess,
to improve perfection as it resides,
I'd leave the game the way it is
and count myself lucky besides.
I like a stalemate is a win for the one that stalemates his opponents king. A perpetual check is a win for the checking player. Elimenate en passant. Eliminate pawns moving 2 squares.
Now if we're talking about USCF tournament rules... IF YOU TOUCH A PIECE TO PROMOTE IT INTO THAT PIECE THEN YOU MUST PROMOTE IT!! Sorry for the caps, it's just that I would of drawn a 2100 player in real life if this were a rule... 
I like a stalemate is a win for the one that stalemates his opponents king. A perpetual check is a win for the checking player. Elimenate en passant. Eliminate pawns moving 2 squares.
So basically shatranj rules with modern chess pieces.
Larsen-Lives-On wrote:
I like a stalemate is a win for the one that stalemates his opponents king. A perpetual check is a win for the checking player. Elimenate en passant. Eliminate pawns moving 2 squares.
Granting a win to someone who keeps checking his opponent is a bit far, as he isn't really earning much.
If you eliminate the pawns moving two squares, there's no need to mention the removal of en passant as it relies on a two square move anyway
The touch - move rule. It would be nice to have a more powerful king too.
even thinking about a piece constitutes it being touched by your mind.