Why can't we open with black pieces as a change?

This seems an interesting option to me..

It would cause unnecessary problems just to start the game.

Don't be silly. 

Why should we? There is no need to white become black, and black become white. I would be confused, if I should play black as white and white as black in a tournament game, just because the colour.
And at home, you can start with black pieces if your opponent accepts it.

Because we need to have a standard way of doing things.  Why not have a darksquare on h1 and a8 and therefore king on color instead?  Somethings need to remain uniform so as to have a consistency. Also, black goes first in Go. 

It would not change anything. Openings would still be same if black goes first.

it would be the same

Well assuming the board configuration to be the same, people will not be accustomed to playing as aggressively as black, plus the openings are reveresed to the other side, causing hesitancy in various openings.

Thanks for the comments.

oh guys! This is no way to treat a nice lady!

It would be the same since the pieces are set up the same way

Your welcome. :) And you have as much right to post things as all the other that posts.

Assuming you mean that the side with the king on the left would start.  

I suppose there would be an advantage to keeping the older 1PK4 system (rather than the new e4), so books would still be accurate.  Otherwise, I see little difference.

If you want to invent a new game, just reverse the king and queen on one side, so each king faces a queen, and you can throw out everything known.

I don't see a problem for this in non-formal games.

I think people assume you are trying to solve the well-known problem of opening theory having too much influence in top-level chess. That would be silly as the game would remain the same (with colors of the pieced reversed and the board mirrored) and the same opening theory could be used

But your point about mindsets is a completely different matter. GM John Tisdall addresses this (or related) issue shortly in his book "Improve Your Chess Now" (p. 177).

He tells an anecdote about his friend who was "trying to arrange playing the black side of the Sicilian Nadjorf, despite having the white pieces." He discusses the move order 1.c3 e5 2.c4, which would indeed be exactly the same as Sicilian in a game that black started. Tisdall continues that after 2...Nf6, the intended move 3.d3 just seems very stupid on the board. "With the white pieces, 3. Nc3 is 'obviously correct'. But when the colours are reversed, 2...d6 leads to the razor-sharp Dragon, Nadjorf, etc."

As an amateur player, I would think that surely a player of that caliber should be able to judge the moves by the position and not by some feeling about white and black pieces. But apparently that is not the case. If you are an experienced player, you have some kind of feeling on how to play with white pieces or with black pieces. Objectively speaking, the difference on how we treat the white and the black pieces should indeed be based only on the position, usually the difference is the extra tempo white has. In Tisdall's case white does not have the advantage any more, so there should be no special feeling about white pieces.

I think starting a game with the black pieces might help a player to improve his thinking at least in the opening. You would probably have the "I'm playing white" feeling just because you're seeing the white pieces in front of you and assume you have the advantage just because of that. However, this experience might make a player realize that moving pieces of lighter color does not give you any advantage - it's the tempo and using it that counts.