Time to change the rules?

There are in my opinion a couple of oddities with the rules that make no sense:

1) A piece pinned to the king cannot move. Surely if it is protecting a piece checking the enemy king, it would still not be able to move if the enemy king captures the checking piece - how about said situation resulting in a draw due to the ensuing mutal check?

2) If it took 99 half-moves to checkmate somebody, surely they'd move away, triggering a draw by the 50 move rule (the present board situation always taking preference to future moves).

Originally posted by Andrelious
There are in my opinion a couple of oddities with the rules that make no sense:

1) A piece pinned to the king cannot move. Surely if it is protecting a piece checking the enemy king, it would still not be able to move if the enemy king captures the checking piece - how about said situation resulting in a draw due to the ensuing mutal check?

2) If it ...[text shortened]... raw by the 50 move rule (the present board situation always taking preference to future moves).

If you make rule change 1, then you should also change the rule about winning. You do not win with checkmate, but capturing the opponent's king.

If there's a checkmate to be had and you can't get it done in 50 moves, then there's a problem.

no.

Nothing should be changed.

If anything is changed, I would allow the Queen to also be able to move like a Knight, which would make it move like every piece. That is all.

Originally posted by gorookyourself
Nothing should be changed.

If anything is changed, I would allow the Queen to also be able to move like a Knight, which would make it move like every piece. That is all.

This piece already exists and is called an Amazon, or Maharajah. There are various variants which use it.

Originally posted by Andrelious
This piece already exists and is called an Amazon, or Maharajah. There are various variants which use it.

I would call it the Queen, because that is what it is.
The Queen used to move one square at a time and I think it was called the Queen back then. So why would we think we could rename it?

The Queen moved one square diagonally in the forerunner game Shatranj. I believe it was most commonly called a 'Firzan'.

I'm just saying that would be the only change I could tolerate in Chess. Anything more extreme than that and I would quit and focus on Backgammon. Which surprisingly has very large tournaments and payouts.

Originally posted by Andrelious
The Queen moved one square diagonally in the forerunner game Shatranj. I believe it was most commonly called a 'Firzan'.

Does that translate to Queen? if so then it's the Queen.

Firzan translates to "General" God bless google.
But I am referring to Medieval times where they "upgraded" the Queen to make it more powerful, they didn't re-name it then. Or did they? 😕

Originally posted by gorookyourself
I would call it the Queen, because that is what it is.

now you're being just silly. it's not queen, it's a Daami.

Originally posted by gorookyourself
Nothing should be changed.

If anything is changed, I would allow the Queen to also be able to move like a Knight, which would make it move like every piece. That is all.

Before chess was standardised the Queen in the Russian version could move as bishop, rook or knight.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Before chess was standardised the Queen in the Russian version could move as bishop, rook or knight.

I wonder why they never kept it that way? Not that it is better, it's just the only change I could deal with. Extra pieces or that 960 crap would drive me away. I don't think the Chess world would miss me though. 😉

Originally posted by Andrelious
There are in my opinion a couple of oddities with the rules that make no sense:

1) A piece pinned to the king cannot move........

Incorrect. The only piece that cannot legally move when pinned to the King is the knight. All other pieces, including pawns, are able to be moved along the vector of the pin, even capturing the piece that is effecting that pin.

skeeter

😕