Some other stupid rules in chess
Sort:
Castles shouldn't move, completely illogical. You wouldn't see a castle moving in real life. And if the horse piece is a knight, where the hell is the actual knight?? Has he fallen off?? People should therefore be banned from calling them knights.
As purveyors of orthodoxy, why are the bishops always heading left or right? Why wouldn't they go straight ahead? And is the movement of bishops on their own color a leftist charge of racism on behalf of a religious organization?
Promotion to Queen is stupid. Did the pawn get a sex change?
hype1980 wrote:
Castles shouldn't move, completely illogical. You wouldn't see a castle moving in real life. And if the horse piece is a knight, where the hell is the actual knight?? Has he fallen off?? People should therefore be banned from calling them knights.
Excellent points. The knights should be renamed horses. The squares should be increased to 100 to make room for new knights, which of course would look like knights instead of horses. The new knight would move and capture like the king, however it would also be able to land on a square occupied by a horse of the same color. (Well, it would also be able to land on a square occupied by a horse of a different color but that would be a capture.) The knight and horse of the same color could occupy the same square. That only makes sense. Now here's the good part. The player then would have the option of moving the knight alone (one square), the horse alone (you know, as the old knight moved) or both pieces (obviously as the horse moves since the knight is astride it). Since a knight on foot moves only one square at a time, moving it onto a square occupied by a horse would be an excellent way of getting the knight involved in the attack sooner. However, the risk is that both could be captured in a single move.
nice troll forum .almost got me
xxdragonxxyz wrote:
nice troll forum .almost got me
Actually, this is a parody of other threads that are presumably sincere in their insanity.
Why does white always statt first like bs.
Why are there stalemates like go move dude, go kys!
Why does the queen have to be sacrificed like just make a rule so you can't sacrifice a queen sexist there is SOOOOO many pieces and guess what? OHHH you choose the queen! (sorry if being rude lol)
RussellWestbr00k wrote:
FBloggs wrote:
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!
BRO GET OFF CHESS.COM IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH CHESS!!!!
I guess it has been adapted so many times already that I guess in the year 3000 (If we haven't already destroyed ourselves) someone from FIDE or whatever it is called then will see this and change the rules.
Bro, get a sense of humor. This forum is a parody.
Why can't u castle through check? Your king isn't landing on that square...I guess it's cause one of the opponents men might shoot the king dead in mid air as he's flying over the castle.
Pawns should be able to jump as many squares as they want to the 1st move.
You should be able to promote to the opposite color.
EndgameStudy wrote:
All the chess pieces should be 1 color, and the players should have to remember whose pieces are whose.
I've got to hand it to you. Brilliant combination! Sacking your queen, a rook and a bishop for a smothered mate! Unfortunately for you, that's my knight.
Why pawns are not allowed to turn back ? This is exactly a clever point of chess, not a stupid one. This gives a chess game a high degree of irreversibility. In other words, it is the arrow of time instead of an infinite pendulum-like action.
EndgameStudy wrote:
Why can't u castle out of check? I'm making a legal move that gets me out of check. What's wrong with that lol
Yes. If Castling is really about helping the King get to safety, then why can't you use it when you have an immediate need?
I don't like the checkmate-rule, it is rather rude and I would like to play for fun, you know, just moving my pieces without thinking much, and see what happens. Just to have a good time. But of course I would like to checkmate my opponents if they just play very bad.
Chess moves should be completely randomly selected. Moves should be completely random with no thought whatsoever.
Pieces defended by a knight should be able to move like a knight
Captured pieces should never be removed from the board, but relocated to any vacant square of the capturer's choice, with bishops being on the same color as they started on of course.
Pieces should also be allowed to move on the lines BETWEEN the squares, not just the squares. A chess teacher at the local library invented this variant.