there needs to be a rule change for pawn promotion

you can only promote with peices your opponent has taken..

its simply not fair to add another queen or a rook on the board?

tell me why this would be a bad thing?

There are historical variations where that was the rule. However, it hasn't been that way for a very long time.

Changing the promotion rule to that would decrease the variability and richness in the game in my opinion.

What happens if your pawn reaches the last rank before you've lost any pieces?

Notice it's "promotion" and not "replacement"

This is already a chess variant you can play if you like.

Good question. It would change some opening and mid game theory and possibly a lot of endgame theory.

The rules have stuck around because of the rich blend of strategy and tactics. Many rule changes would make the game more bland. They're fair because both players understand the rules and each move is visible at all times.

Ok, so how the game changes. In the opening and mid game advanced pawns would be much weaker instead of the interesting double edged sword of increasing weakness and at the same time increasing threat to queen.

Heavy piece endgames, especially queen endgames, would be more drawish.

My god, you barely know how to play the game and you are already proposing rule changes.

I think anyone who is not an IA, IM or GM should be prevented from starting any thread along the lines of "There NEEDS to be a rule change..."

Tell me why this would be a bad thing.

Why don't you lead the charge and adhere to the rule on your own.  Nothing says you have to abide by everyone else's way of promoting your own pawns.

In fact, I'd say if you don't do it, it makes you seem like a stinkin' little hypocrite.  

Maybe you would like this one: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/virrey-chess

lets change rule for king343 no promotion at all for him or her.

I say pawns should be promoted only into bishops, it will makes them look like taller pawns, a queen or a knight would be too much of shapeshifting.

I wouldn't say it isn't fair for someone to have two queens. After all, their opponent didn't stop the pawn from reaching the end of the board. It's quite difficult to promote a pawn (usually), so why shouldn't a player be rewarded for doing so? And as some have already mentioned, implementing your rule changes a fair bit of theory, especially in queen endgames.

Chess is perfect! Don't change a thing.

There actually was a time in medieval chess when  a pawn could promote only to a fers, the medieval piece which supplanted the firzan and was in turn supplanted by the queen.

When the modern game was introduced, around 1475, some people argued that allowing more than one queen was tantamount to condoning adultery. Until 1851, the pawn had to promote to a piece already captured, and if none was available it had to remain dormant on the 8th rank until a capture occurred.

It's also not fair for your opponent to sac a knight and then checkmate you....but them's the breaks, as they say.

I was once so busy trying to find out how many queens I could have on the board that I unintentionally discovered stalemate!

If this suggestion were implemented, in the Albin Counter line (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4) where White tries to play 4 e3, Black wouldn't have the tricky resource of underpromoting to a Knight via 4...Bb4+ 5 Bd2 dxe3 6 Bxb4 exf2+ 7 Ke2 fxg1N+

Apparently capturing the White Knight on g1 would demand an underpromotion to a Bishop since that's the only piece that Black has lost at that point.

So this suggested rule would sabotage the theory of some openings.

Try using the pawn promotion rule, employing a move called the Freudensprünge, used in the Medieval Chess variant called the Courier Game - http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-little-chess-village-part-ii

Wouldn't it be fun to give each player a certain number of chess bucks where they can secretly buy the various rules they want to play against their opponent? ;-)