wtf
New rules for 2100 and beyond...
Sort:
Nov 26, 2013
0
#3
I would add a rule that pawns, if they promote on a square of the color of the promoting player's existing bishop, can only promote to a bishop of that color. One of these same-colored bishops, then, can "capture" the other on a subsequent move, and become a queen. For example:
you can only see your pieces, that would be fun i reckon
Nov 26, 2013
0
#5
The Italian free castling was interesting when it was the norm there. My king and rook each had a couple of squares that it could choose.
I like your idea Twinchicky. Interesting concept. It would certainly change the way middle games are played.
BorgQueen wrote:
"Yup, eliminating castling is as clever as elimination of the pawn having the ability to move two squares on its first move."
Who said anything about eliminating castling?
Feb 7, 2014
0
#8
Why change a perfect game ? In my opinion , any change of rules will deteriorate the game.
Feb 7, 2014
0
#9
pelly13 wrote:
Why change a perfect game ? In my opinion , any change of rules will deteriorate the game.
+1
They probably said the same thing when "heretics" wanted to make the Queen and Bishop move more than one square at a time or add en passant.
Feb 7, 2014
0
#11
Well , I mean SINCE those changes ( which speed up the game) there seems to be no need for any other changes. But hey , that's just my opinion. I understand that some people would like to eliminate draws. If all is right though , chess in it's current form might be proven to be a draw.
I think it would be interesting if Queens Knights Bishops and Rooks could merge, move together, and unmerge. So for instance my Queen could capture my own Knight to create a merged piece. That merged piece can move like Queen or Knight. I could then unmerge the piece by moving only one of its components. It would be risky though because if the merged piece is captured then you lose both!
The only debatable/arbitrary rule in chess imho is the 50 move rule
Feb 7, 2014
0
#14
heinzie wrote:
The only debatable/arbitrary rule in chess imho is the 50 move rule
Exactly! I can't even make it to move 50 because I'm so bad
Feb 7, 2014
0
#15
Kramnik once suggested that removing en passant as a rule would change quite a bit about chess.
heinzie wrote:
The only debatable/arbitrary rule in chess imho is the 50 move rule
They should change it to 5 moves. That would alter chess a bit.
Yeah, that's the thing. The 50 move rule starts imposing and influencing play quite concretely at a certain point and feels quite intrusive, and arbitrary, as I said. Tablebase 'research' (or whatever you want to call it) has shown that there are plenty of endgame scenarios in which winning play still cannot avoid 50 consecutive moves without captures nor pawn moves
[COMMENT DELETED]
Look here, entry 393: http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/diary.htm
So back in the day (before say 1600) new rules could be implemented such as en passant and castling. Now that chess is locked in as is, besides 960 type rules (which are really cool), what ONE rule would you insert into the instructions that come with brand new chess games would you create? Nothing too dramatic such as would alter the nature of the game.
I think mine would be that once per game after castling the King could move two squares. If he didn't castle it could be up to 3 squares. One would say "leap" or something like that to mark the occasion. What do you people think?