if i were to make an amendment to classical chess as a fide change
and not just as another variant i would go back a few centuries and
alter the reach of the bishops to the indian version where the bishop
( elephants for them ) could only move diagonally two spaces beyond their own square.
Why?
I would remove en passant.
Plenty of soldiers get behind enemy lines in war and they don't just disappear so I find en passant ridiculous and absolutely not needed or warranted in chess.
That's about the only rule I would change.
What about the queen?
She moves like a rook and a bishop so why not add the ability to move like a knight as well?
That could add to the tension I assume. ๐ค
@patzeringsaid Why?
I would remove en passant.
Plenty of soldiers get behind enemy lines in war and they don't just disappear so I find en passant ridiculous and absolutely not needed or warranted in chess.
That's about the only rule I would change.
En passant was introduced when the pawns' initial double move was introduced.
If you remove en passant then the double move must be removed.
That would lead to slower games and make many gambits unplayable.
In short; the game would be less exciting.
Getting rid of castling on the other hand ...
๐
Definitely an option ๐ค
Getting rid of castling would keep the king's in the center and lead to quick attacks.
You could still remove en passant and keep the pawns ability to move two squares at the start.