The wonder of it all is that you cant change the rules.
If you could change one rule of chess,what would it be?
Sort:
You should be able to castle out of check.
Mar 7, 2015
0
#124
Tin-Cup wrote:
chessperson55555 wrote:
You should be able to castle out of check.
Aha........... Castle thru check
captnding123 wrote:
chessperson55555 wrote:
You should be able to castle out of check.
Aha........... Castle thru check
???? Castle out of check. And what are you doing here right now? You've been here since hours. Isn't it night there? Plus, you, ahh.. I won't say this.
I'd add a rule that this thread topic can no longer be asked, as it's already been posed hundreds of times here. 
I really don't like them too.
NK, how's it going with Miha? He retired a couple of weeks ago.
Miha who??? I don't know who you are talking about.
If u have a
a letter in your name,U must win
i would change that if king and rook is in position they can castle no matter if the rooks have moved or not
If I could change but one rule in chess it would be that we only play outside in the bright sun. The opponent can pick his color. I get to pick my chair position.
captnding123 wrote:
chessperson55555 wrote:
You should be able to castle out of check.
Aha........... Castle thru check
oh no, it's obvious and sensible why you can't castle through check, but I just can't see why you can't castle if you're simply in check.
This forum is dying
If you have a perpetual check and your opponent complains, you are entitled to punch him in the nose.
May 22, 2015
0
#136
I would easily eliminate stalemate rules. I feel it's very lame that a player that was crushed through an entire game, and should have resigned, happened to find a tricky way to force a draw out of his bad playing
It doesn't even make sense in a comparison with a military campaign. No way a won war should be agreed as a draw just because the opponent no longer has forces to resist nor anywhere to run. That's exactly what losing the war is.
No, that kind of eliminates some of the skill required in chess. Youshould be able to castle OUT of check. (just not through it.)
Madness20 írta:
I would easily eliminate stalemate rules. I feel it's very lame that a player that was crushed through an entire game, and should have resigned, happened to find a tricky way to force a draw out of his bad playing
It doesn't even make sense in a comparison with a military campaign. No way a won war should be agreed as a draw just because the opponent no longer has forces to resist nor anywhere to run. That's exactly what losing the war is.
But then again, how lame it is when you can't win a game when you crush your opponent?
It's not over until the fat lady sings, as they say.
Why should you be awarded a win when you simply didn't win?
May 23, 2015
0
#139
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
Madness20 írta:
I would easily eliminate stalemate rules. I feel it's very lame that a player that was crushed through an entire game, and should have resigned, happened to find a tricky way to force a draw out of his bad playing
It doesn't even make sense in a comparison with a military campaign. No way a won war should be agreed as a draw just because the opponent no longer has forces to resist nor anywhere to run. That's exactly what losing the war is.
But then again, how lame it is when you can't win a game when you crush your opponent?
It's not over until the fat lady sings, as they say.
Why should you be awarded a win when you simply didn't win?
You simply didn't win? When a stalemate happens, it means that first, the "winning" side played well enough to eliminate all opponent forces, and the "losing" side blundered enough to get into such disadvantage. Stalemate for all instances requires the exact same mistakes from the loser as a checkmate with the only exception that the lack of movement without check is claimed as a draw, when there's no logic behind it even when comparing to reality of wars, which is exactly what chess is meant to simulate.
There's literally no logic in giving a draw chance to someone that actually, played bad, and was crushed.
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!