My idea...

Hi tvochess,

I actually used a Knight first on the same square but quickly realised it could
be done without a Black blunder. I then messed about with the Bishop but
it too needs a blunder. Your first move is good in the Knight one. I never had that idea.

BigDog will post a good one without a blunder cooking it. Maybe I'll think up a better
one myself when I'm on a train journey to Dundee later on today.

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
As for the non-castling idea, well it would give people an incentive not to castle, which could make for more attacking, dynamic chess,

Would it, though? Your king would always be in danger, so both players would more or less be forced to be on the defensive for the entire game. I think the result would be less, not more, attacking. (Also, say bye-bye to bishop sacs on h6 or h7...)

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Would it, though? Your king would always be in danger, so both players would more or less be forced to be on the defensive for the entire game. I think the result would be less, not more, attacking. (Also, say bye-bye to bishop sacs on h6 or h7...)

I think that as long as a change in the rules of chess doesn't affect the balance in strength between black and white, the nature of the game is still the same and attacking/defensive will mainly depend on the players.

This is apart from the fact that opening theory would have to be redone all over. This means there is an enormous can of tricks and traps to be discovered and tested. As long as there are no refutations found, the attacking player (setting traps and exploiting tactics) will be in the advantage.