What if god was one of us?
What if chess was different?
Sort:
You mean, what if chess were different.
Mayedasun wrote:
What if god was one of us?
If he was, he would probably not post in this site.
kaynight wrote:
Chess singular was. Chesses plural were. I think.
"Were" is grammatically correct. It is the subjunctive form of the verb.
By the way, my English isn't great, and also I will post more "changes" later. I don't have the time right now.
Mayedasun wrote:
What if god was one of us?
Come to think of it, "were" should be used here as well
Furthermore, at the risk of becoming tiresome, it should be"What if chess were different?"
Apr 23, 2014
0
#9
Bottom line: if chess were different, it wouldn't be the same. It would be different. It used to be different. The queen was the weakest piece; pawns couldn't move two spaces on the first turn. But now it's what it is.
Also, you realize that we have access to Chess 960 on this site. That should be different enough for anyone.
I remember a guy once recommending that the rules of chess be changed so that each player made moves which took place at the same time as each other, rather than taking turns...
Of course that concept couldn't possibly work because of a few major flaws. e.g. What if you get put in check? A piece gets taken? Both players move to the same square, etc.
But it would definitely be different though haha
Apr 23, 2014
0
#11
Change 1: No difference.
Change 2: It would be harder to trap the King in the centre, so players would delay castling.
Change 3: Castling on opposite sides would be more common, leading to sharper games.
Change 4: It would take longer to develop the pieces to good positions.
Apr 23, 2014
0
#12
Gold_Grizzly wrote:
Change 1: No difference.
Change 2: It would be harder to trap the King in the centre, so players would delay castling.
Change 3: Castling on opposite sides would be more common, leading to sharper games.
Change 4: It would take longer to develop the pieces to good positions.
i agree the changes wouldnt change the whole game. it could be like that.
anyway i like chess how it is. maybe you should try to play a game with that changes anytime.
as i said i like chess how it is now. i dont like the variants in that game. i think that even the chess 960 is a bit fetched
salatoy wrote:
as i said i like chess how it is now. i dont like the variants in that game. i think that even the chess 960 is a bit fetched
I think the whole idea behind chess 960 was for players to play based on their ability to identify the best moves on their own, rather than basing your first 15 moves on opening theory and taking the skill out of the game. Obviously there is no opening theory in 960, but the basic principles of chess still apply so you have to think more about your moves rather than picking a move because it 'looks' right.
Gold_Grizzly wrote:
Change 1: No difference.
Change 2: It would be harder to trap the King in the centre, so players would delay castling.
Change 3: Castling on opposite sides would be more common, leading to sharper games.
Change 4: It would take longer to develop the pieces to good positions.
+
What if checkers were different? Or golf, or soccer, or monopoly, or old maid & go fish. What if...................
The rule change I'd like to see is the bizarre situation where a piece pinned to its king is still allowed to give check.
hopefully they leave chess as it is
Apr 23, 2014
0
#18
slide_checkmate wrote:
salatoy wrote:
as i said i like chess how it is now. i dont like the variants in that game. i think that even the chess 960 is a bit fetched
I think the whole idea behind chess 960 was for players to play based on their ability to identify the best moves on their own, rather than basing your first 15 moves on opening theory and taking the skill out of the game. Obviously there is no opening theory in 960, but the basic principles of chess still apply so you have to think more about your moves rather than picking a move because it 'looks' right.
i agree and im sure you are right about the first 15 moves.
about 960 maybe i dont like it because i have a very low rating.
as for "What if chess was different" chess is what it is. chess is chess and it has its rules and tactics. we shouldnt change it or garble it.
Apr 23, 2014
0
#19
bobyyyy wrote:
Chess rules are what they are because they are perfect. Changing just one of the basic rules would destroy the game.
i agree with you and i agree with KRAPARSOV too.
chess must be the chess we now and we play till now.
bobyyyy wrote:
Chess rules are what they are because they are perfect. Changing just one of the basic rules would destroy the game.
Chess960 is a lovely variant of the chess game, I wouldn't say it has destroyed the game, rather further increased its popularity and solidfying its immense sophistication and skill required!
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/favourite-quotes
Have you ever thought how chess would be if it was a little bit or totally different from what it is? Post what you think about the following alternative starting positions/moves and how the game as a whole would be altered. I have posted the "changes" from the most subtle to the most extreme.
Change No 1:
What if the king swapped sides with the queen?
When I was thinking about it, I couldn't find any important difference. Everything would become reversed, but I found nothing that could change the whole game.
Change No 2:
What if the king could castle anytime?
This includes when the king has already moved, when he is checked or when castling will actually result to the rook being attacked.
Change No 3:
What if ONE king swapped sides with the queen and the other one did not:
This one would definetely bring changes to the game, but exactly what kind of changes?
Change No 4:
Knight swaps sides with bishop/rook, or bishop with rook.
I have a few more changes, more extreme, that I will post in a while.