What if chess was different?

Check that forum i made for Chess 960.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-960-good-or-bad-for-chess-as-a-game

Sure will. 

What would happen if all the pieces (apart from the king) was a queen?

What if there was an extra row behind the pawns?

thx.
plz post your opinion too.
and as for the arguments im sure they will be and i want -and i almost always do-  that i give much attention to all opinions and views.

for your first question i think it would be two results:

1) white wins
2) draw

for the sec question.

i think the game wouldnt change a lot or it would completely change.

it wouldnt be the same openings and tactics and that wold change the whole flow of the game.

maybe he would deal with more serious problems...LOL

you are very funny. why you using MY name?? LOL

ok 
but the one i know for you is that you are JUST very very FUNNY:) 

right you never know

;)

Fingers crossed that happens

I love the knights!!

;)

i think that rooks would be more powerful too

nothing forget it. thats not a forum we should talk about the god

You are probably talking about Capablanca, who suggested (I think) the Knights/Bishops swap, so that there would be more attacking chances and it would be less easy to draw all the time and be boring.

WARNING:

I don't mean to say that if we changed some of the rules it would be better, I am just saying what you think that it would change. Anyway, now I have the time to post the most extreme changes:

Change No 5:
What if pawns could only take on the square that they move, just like any other piece, and not diagonally.

Change No 6: 

Now it is getting extreme. What if chess was like that:

Actually, while it is quite extreme, it looks like the game might actually be more "attacky", if you know what I mean. Or maybe not, because it would be impossible to commit a nice attack when the opponent has two queen defenders.

Change No 7:

Now this is extreme, so watch out:

Is it safe to say that white would win 99% of the time? And that chess would generally be lame?

Change No 8:

What if you could take your own pieces? Well... that...

Change No 9:

Oh wait! One more! What if you could take no pieces AT ALL? If that rule wasn't in chess? Well, now I think it is safe to say that chess would be THE lamest game ever.

Yeah, I don't like chess 960 either.

Well think of these changes as well! I think that it is nice to think stuff like that, even though if even one chess rule actually changed, I would be massively upset.

No, Capablanca chess is something entirely different... Capablanca suggested that the board be expanded to 10 files rather than 8 and he invented two pieces which basically combined a Knight with a Rook, and a Knight with a Bishop. You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capablanca_chess

What I was talking about is if both players moved simultaneously rather than one after the other. But it isn't important because I don't think it could actually work

If you mean that there would be two rows of pawns, I don't think that rooks would be powerfull at all, because it would be a lot harder to open files for them. Knights would be ultra-powerful, and the general opening strategy would be to find spaces for your knights to come in. By the way, Capablanca once proposed this variant, so that chess wouldn't "die" from draws:

The thing that looks like a donkey in wheels on h1 and h8 is a chancellor, which combines the powers of a rook and a knight. The thing on c1 and c8 that looks like a donkey with ribbons is an archbishop, and it combines the powers of a knight and a bishop. Capablanca's point was that chess after some decades would die and become boring, because GrandMasters would all play so perfectly that all of their games would be draws. He was mostly right about that, since nowdays, if you check the World Championship level games, you will notice that the overwhelming majority are draws. Still, I wouldn't like to see my chess being changed!

When you were posting this, I was writing my own post about it!