@patzeringsaid 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.
Allowing the pawn to move two squares at the start without a capture option in passing would allow the weaker (or simply less aggressive) player to lock the game up with pawn moves much easier. A player who needed to win in the last round would have a very hard time against someone set on a draw- far harder than the current rules.
It would be really hard to open lines if the other player wanted to prevent it, which is why the rule was added to balance the scales.
@patzeringsaid 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.
Why not let the pawns move backwards, they're not allowed to retreat, poor things.
@mister-moggysaid 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.
The only thing I would change is blitz. This form of chess is perfect for those with short attention spans. I know it's fun and I used to play it a lot when I was younger, but there are some very good reasons many top players discourage it. To name a few:
1. It overemphasis time
2. Encourages superficial play
3. Fosters unsound risk taking
4. Reinforces bad habits
(See link below)
Maybe I'm an old fuddy duddy, but think Botvinnik's boring, but solid brand of chess will always be the best.
the recent discussion of how to change classical chess
27 Jun '19 13:45
Back to Top