the recent discussion of how to change classical chess

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. 🤔

@Patzering

in thai chess the queen may only move one square at a time.

I would change the rules so that only after you capture the enemy king do you win.

This would do away with a lot of illegal moves including absolute pins.

Interesting 🤔

@mister-moggy said
@Patzering

in thai chess the queen may only move one square at a time.

@Eladar

both king and queen are limited to one square each in thai chess.

Longer games I imagine.

@Patzering

Nah, just that the queen is a much more sucky piece. I can lose just as quickly with a sucky queen.

Haha ya me too!

@patzering said
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.

Definitely an option 🤔
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.

@patzering said
You could still remove en passant and keep the pawns ability to move two squares at the start.

How about having a coin flip before the game starts to determine if the king or queen gets its color?

@wolfgang59 said
You could ...
but the game would be ruined.