alleen 1 tegen 1 geen hulp van derden / only 1 on 1 no help from third parties
If you could change one rule of chess,what would it be?
Sort:
Jun 16, 2015
0
#142
Jun 16, 2015
0
#143
DENVERHIGH wrote:
Add a new rule.
Allow the king to do on the field promotion to it's pawn.
The pawn must be on the fifth rank or higher.
The king must be next to its own pawn and on the move promote it to a knight.
This move can only be made once in a game. That will be his move.
Here is an example.
So much win. Would love to see that. xD
Madness20 wrote:
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.
It then means that the "winning" side "achieved" stalemate through staggering incompetence that completely dwarfs all of the mistakes the "losing" side made.
I would change the rule involving Black has choice of pieces.
If there is a piece dispute the TD shall rule on the higher quality set.
Heavier weighting, at least a 3.75" king, a clean unmarred wooden board that properly fits well maintained, clean and unmarred pieces shall trump all others. Homemade pieces shall not be allowed.
All pieces shall be at least double weighted. All bottom felt must be securely fitted, and the piece shall not sit with a tilt. Any missing parts from pieces shall void the set: broken crowns, broken Bishop Mitre's, etc. Any visibly repaired pieces shall void the set as well.
Too often have I played an opponent with dirty, chipped, or otherwise not official or cheap and very light pieces; dirty, warped and scratched boards as well.
While I can appreciate the observation that some folks can't afford to purchase high quality pieces, I must also ask then why would someone insist upon using such obviously poor quality pieces to play?
The game can be enjoyed on so many levels why not with quality pieces?
I would like to see USCF amend that rule so that the heavier and higher quality pieces are used. Boards and pieces that are not well maintained shall not be used.
Once as a white player my opponent was late. I had set up my pieces, moved and started the clock when the TD announced time to begin. My opponenet arrived about 5 minutes later and made an issue of not being able to use his pieces. He went to the TD and was outraged and disturbed several players playing.
Once I had gone to my assigned board to find unweighted and hollow pieces set up with a red and black and well distressed board. The TD actually solved the problem by assiging us a good club set as the black player was resolved not to allow my pieces to be used. There was NO RULE!
The USCF should adopt rules that properly fit the square size to the pieces, state that roll up boards shall lay flat and not show any curl and not be marked up or otherwise marred or creased and that wooden boards shall trump vinyl and paper boards in all cases if they properly fit the pieces.
Pieces shall be clean, have all felt pads, be at least double weighted, unweighted pieces shall not be allowed.
The way that the USCF could adopt this rule would simply attach it to the rules as an amendment that allows TD's leeway and authority. TD's should report any disputes and solutions to allow means to study both the problem and solutions before making a rule change official.
Black having piece choice does not grant an advantage; it is just a courtesy that should be reciprocated.
Jun 16, 2015
0
#146
I'd introduce a drop rule like in Shōgi: pieces that you capture become your own, and you can put them on any unoccupied square instead of moving.
pawnwhacker wrote:
What is wrong with leaving chess exactly where it is?
Nothing at all. But it sure is fun to read!
millionairesdaughter wrote:
The touch piece move piece is the one I would change. It's a bit childish.
The pont is to keep players hands off the pieces until moved. The touch move is a necessary restriction to disallow any unnecessary contact with pieces on the board. For instance picking up a piece, moving it to a square then returning it just to move another piece. Eliminate the touch move and all sorts of problems pop up.
Jun 16, 2015
0
#149
Mine would be a radical idea that would be hard to get support for, but I would add an alternate win condition that can always be achieved. For example, getting the king to the opposite rank, or maybe to a specific square. For instance, Tamerlane Chess uses protruding citadel squares but getting the king to them is only a draw. If not that, then maybe simply eliminating everything but the king is a win (Bare King Rule).
Whatever it is, an alternate win would help remove stalemates, draws and counting rules.
Jun 16, 2015
0
#150
Maybe you should be able to re-castle.
The Rook you castle with cannot have moved.
HOWEVER, let's say you castle Kingside. If you move your King back to e1, remove all pieces from b1, c1, and d1, and the a1-Rook has yet to move, and you are not in check, and you wouldn't be castling over or into check, you can re-castle now Queenside.
The same would apply if you castle Queenside first. Bring the King back to e1, not move your h1-Rook, clear out all squares in between, you can re-castle Kingside now.
Al I can say is Bark,wag,woof,ruff,grrrrr,aaoooooo?
chessweb101 wrote:
OpiningTheoretician wrote:
I would forbid one's queen to mate the other king.
That would make it pretty hard.
Just to clarify, you're talking about the king's dirty weenie, right?
and to answer the original question, you should be able to capture your own pieces. Sometimes an idiot pawn doesn't know when to gtfo of the way
A piece which is pinned cannot check or mate.
Add a new rule.
Allow the king to do on the field promotion to it's pawn.
The pawn must be on the fifth rank or higher.
The king must be next to its own pawn and on the move promote it to a knight.
This move can only be made once in a game. That will be his move.
Here is an example.