I have a serious point to make!
I only learned from playing here that you cannot castle if the king moves 'through' check!??!
What sort of rule is that - think about it.
Chess is a your turn, my turn game. There is no transitional stage in the middle of a turn. As long as there is nothing in the way, you can move your queen from one end of the board to the other 'via' many squares on which it could be taken.
A legal move has a start and a finish- theres no bit in the middle.. otherwise precisely how does the knight move - one square left and two forward or two forward and one left? does it matter if there is a piece in the way- no of course not!
This castle example is (correct me if i'm wrong) the only time there is deemed to be anything other than a start and finish to a legal move.
Originally posted by sporadicThe reason is because the king moves two squares. It is not a normal move it is a 'special' move.
I have a serious point to make!
I only learned from playing here that you cannot castle if the king moves 'through' check!??!
What sort of rule is that - think about it.
Chess is a your turn, my turn game. There is no transitional stage in the middle of a turn. As long as there is nothing in the way, you can move your queen from one end of the boa ...[text shortened]... the only time there is deemed to be anything other than a start and finish to a legal move.
Originally posted by tomtom232Hmm thats not really a reason.
The reason is because the king moves two squares. It is not a normal move it is a 'special' move.
There are a number of special moves and rules - en passant, promoting pawns etc. but they all follow the basic framework of the game, and in my opinion are good rules - its still a turn at a time, nothing in the middle.
I used to play without this 'anomoly' and I promise - it plays just fine!
In answer to the poster of this topic - i vote to get rid of this rule.
Originally posted by sporadicAnd why can't you castle when you're in check? If castling is for King safety, then why I can't I get him the hell out of the middle when he's attacked?? 😀
Hmm thats not really a reason.
There are a number of special moves and rules - en passant, promoting pawns etc. but they all follow the basic framework of the game, and in my opinion are good rules - its still a turn at a time, nothing in the middle.
I used to play without this 'anomoly' and I promise - it plays just fine!
In answer to the poster of this topic - i vote to get rid of this rule.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitswissgambit you're on my wave length..
And why can't you castle when you're in check? If castling is for King safety, then why I can't I get him the hell out of the middle when he's attacked?? 😀
make that an extra vote for that suggestion!!
2 edits
Originally posted by MilkyJoeI think chess is awfully close to perfect. I assume that you are looking for ways to improve the game yet without losing the fundamental nature of chess. It depends on what one thinks the problems are. For example:
If you could introduce a new chess rule/move, what would it be? Or is the game perfect? What if you could get rid of one? I know some have been introduced, have any been scrapped? I mean relatively recent changes and not any variants.
a. Too much opening theory - Fischer Random might be a solution, but I think it destroys the most attractive element of chess - the absolute lack of chance. I don't think that most chess players would be attracted to a game where they might lose simply because the opponent gets a better set-up in the initial position. In fact, I don't think that opening theory is too cumbersome for anyone below master level. Many players become IMs or GMs with solid, conservative opening repertoires.
b. Too drawish - again, this problem only seems to be serious at the top levels. And even then players will often accept a draw due to their position in the tournament rather than the position on the board. I don't think changing chess rules is necessary to address this, but rather a change in top tournament format might be more effective (i.e. No draw offers before move 40).
If chess really has become so stale that a modification might be in order to be modified, I think the easiest change would be to do away with castling. All the same strategies and tactics would still apply, all the pieces would still move in the same way, but Opening theory would go out the window and with it perhaps the drawishness that currently exists.
Anyway, interesting question, but I'm still trying to become halfway decent at the game as it is now!
Scott
Originally posted by smrex13Against too b.drawish
I think chess is awfully close to perfect. I assume that you are looking for ways to improve the game yet without losing the fundamental nature of chess. It depends on what one thinks the problems are. For example:
a. Too much opening theory - Fischer Random might be a solution, but I think it destroys the most attractive element of chess - the absolu ...[text shortened]... g question, but I'm still trying to become halfway decent at the game as it is now!
Scott
Why not use the 3:1:0 point system?
Doesn't it help here?
I would not like to change rules on the board, because it changes the nature of the game. I think I could live without the castling, but e.p. mentioned earlier in this thread should really stay.
Originally posted by smrex13About a rule change, I read about this once in an article, not sure who suggested this before:
b. Too drawish - again, this problem only seems to be serious at the top levels. And even then players will often accept a draw due to their position in the tournament rather than the position on the board. I don't think changing chess rules is necessary to address this, but rather a change in top tournament format might be more effective (i.e. No draw offers before move 40).
Scott
What if a draw offer stands for, say: 5 or 10 moves?
Let's say that in a drawn position the white player offers black a draw. The next 10 moves black may accept or decline the draw when it is his time to move. This opens up opportunities to make potentially unsound sacrifices. Black can even drop a queen or all his remaining pieces and still accept the draw (for those 5 or 10 moves only). But maybe black has a winning attack.
The only way for black to lose in those 5 or 10 moves is by being mated.
In my opinion that would be an interesting rule change!
Originally posted by SiebrenWI dislike the 3:1:0 point system. Sometimes I draw (or I have seen draws) in a totally lost game because the winning side has overlooked a perpetual check or something like that. This kind of draws are rewarding for the ego. Why then penalize the player not giving him half the points he would get for a win?
Against too b.drawish
Why not use the 3:1:0 point system?
Doesn't it help here?
I would not like to change rules on the board, because it changes the nature of the game. I think I could live without the castling, but e.p. mentioned earlier in this thread should really stay.
If you draw beautifully you still get penalized for playing a draw.
Originally posted by LekZI have never heared about that variation on the "draw-offer possibilities". It sounds really interesting 🙂
About a rule change, I read about this once in an article, not sure who suggested this before:
What if a draw offer stands for, say: 5 or 10 moves?
Let's say that in a drawn position the white player offers black a draw. The next 10 moves black may accept or decline the draw when it is his time to move. This opens up opportunities to make potentially unsou ...[text shortened]... se 5 or 10 moves is by being mated.
In my opinion that would be an interesting rule change!
No more than 3 checks in a row. I hate it when people go on checking frenzies. Sometimes this manages something, but usually it's just a bit of annoyance before winning. Perpetual check is still draw if you can force it, but if you can't, you LOSE for more than 3 checks in a row.
- Joined
- 01 Jul 08
- Moves
- 23826
Originally posted by doodinthemoodNot sure about that one. Sometimes you can force a king to a checmate position, or take a few pieces by constantly getting your opponent in check. What if you're one move away from checkmate yourself and have no option to constantly check otherwise you lose? That happened to me once, and by going after his king, I won. It must have been 5 - 10 checks in a row to get the win.
No more than 3 checks in a row. I hate it when people go on checking frenzies. Sometimes this manages something, but usually it's just a bit of annoyance before winning. Perpetual check is still draw if you can force it, but if you can't, you LOSE for more than 3 checks in a row.
So I don't know how you would get around perpetual check rule, which can be a bit unfair.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornWhy not? If it's a beautiful swindle and I get a hard-fought draw in a totally lost position, why should I be penalized by getting only 1/3s of a win and not half that?
I don't like the system which gives 1 point for a win and 1/2 point for a draw. I'd much rather see 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw.