Answers to your "questions". Number one: the knight is very limited in spaces. Any other piece being able to do this would make the knight underpowered. Number two: as soon as your king gets close enough to checkmate, the opponent will just take your king.
Some other stupid rules in chess
Sort:
Number 3: FIDE didn't exist in the Middle ages. Number 4: It makes you think about your moves, and also gives the chance for brilliant games with lots and lots of sacrifices.
Number 5: If they could move back, then there wouldn't be much deliberation over pawn moves. It's like taking back a move.
4 is what makes chess special.
I have some. The pawn moves one way and captures another way but other pieces capture the same way they move. The rules should be consistent. The rook should capture like the bishop moves and vice versa. The Queen should capture like the knight moves and vice versa. And of course a piece reaching the 8th rank should be demoted to a pawn (but the demotion shouldn't count as a pawn move for the purpose of the 50 move draw rule).
Oct 22, 2017
0
#7
Why only black and white squares? And why can the bishops only move in one color?
Oct 22, 2017
0
#8
Tremani, you should know that I mean everything ironically. I am joking about some threads where people complain about stupid rules which not stupid at all. :-)
Oct 22, 2017
0
#9
torrubirubi wrote:
1. Why only the knight is allow to jump over other figures? This is simply not fair! And it complicates too much the game.
2. Why can the king not checkmate the other king? I mean, if I played well and still have a figure, why should I not be able to kill the king?
3. En passant is a horrible rule, only invented to disturb the game. Why we need such new rules? (what? The rule was introduced already in the Middle Age? Do you mean that already in this time people from FIDE were already inventing such stupid rules?)
4. I don't understand why the rules allow my opponent to checkmate me if I am up in material. This is against the principles of every game!
5. Why are the pawns not allow to move back? This is too complicated and unnecessary.
Do you have other ideas from stupid rules in chess? Stupid stalemate and the stupid 50 moves-rule where already mentioned in other threads, so you have to list other stupidities.
This is not ok. This has to stop now! Equal rights for all pieces.
TremaniSunChild wrote:
Number 5: If they could move back, then there wouldn't be much deliberation over pawn moves. It's like taking back a move.
The OP asks some sincere questions but do you respond with thoughtful answers? No. Instead you interrupt a serious discussion with sarcasm. I think we've all had it up to here with your tomfoolery!
This is horrible pls help this man
If you want equal rights for all pieces, play Go.
I still think Pawn should be able to move backwards but only on the first move.
Oct 23, 2017
0
#15
Why should a play only on the board? I mean, after a check I should be allowed to go out of the board with my King. This would prevent a lot of stalemates.
Oct 23, 2017
0
#16
Why do I have to play against I opponent? This is a stupid rule, it would make more sense to play both sides, so I can always agree with a draw if I think I am losing.
torrubirubi wrote:
1. Why only the knight is allow to jump over other figures? This is simply not fair! And it complicates too much the game.
2. Why can the king not checkmate the other king? I mean, if I played well and still have a figure, why should I not be able to kill the king?
3. En passant is a horrible rule, only invented to disturb the game. Why we need such new rules? (what? The rule was introduced already in the Middle Age? Do you mean that already in this time people from FIDE were already inventing such stupid rules?)
4. I don't understand why the rules allow my opponent to checkmate me if I am up in material. This is against the principles of every game!
5. Why are the pawns not allow to move back? This is too complicated and unnecessary.
Do you have other ideas from stupid rules in chess? Stupid stalemate and the stupid 50 moves-rule where already mentioned in other threads, so you have to list other stupidities.
That is an attempt at humour, right?
torrubirubi wrote:
Tremani, you should know that I mean everything ironically. I am joking about some threads where people complain about stupid rules which not stupid at all. :-)
I think that I picked up on that!
1. The rule where you have to checkmate (assassinate) the king. Why can't you just hold the queen hostage or make a peace treaty? 2. Why are bishops even fighting a war?? Men of God usually stayed out of politics, let alone battles! (OK, I know this isn't necessarily true through all of history, but the stereotype remains, so give me a break. :) )
1. Why only the knight is allow to jump over other figures? This is simply not fair! And it complicates too much the game.
2. Why can the king not checkmate the other king? I mean, if I played well and still have a figure, why should I not be able to kill the king?
3. En passant is a horrible rule, only invented to disturb the game. Why we need such new rules? (what? The rule was introduced already in the Middle Age? Do you mean that already in this time people from FIDE were already inventing such stupid rules?)
4. I don't understand why the rules allow my opponent to checkmate me if I am up in material. This is against the principles of every game!
5. Why are the pawns not allow to move back? This is too complicated and unnecessary.
Do you have other ideas from stupid rules in chess? Stupid stalemate and the stupid 50 moves-rule where already mentioned in other threads, so you have to list other stupidities.