Time to change the rules?

Yes. I didn't qualify that quite right. ".....along the vector of the pin if that's the natural move of that piece."

My bad - well spotted.

skeets

😵

Originally posted by Andrelious
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

It is a turn based game so, conceptually, in a situation like this the player capturing the opponent's king first wins. And game over.

King's don't actually get taken in the game, but the concept still applies. And that is why the enemy king cannot capture the protected checking piece.

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).

The only thing I would change is to make it easier for Russian female players to get US visas.

My wife says it doesn't matter, because I still wouldn't have any game.

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).

Who rec'd this post? Fess up. 😠

The rules make perfect sense as they stand and should not be changed.

1) He who gets the enemy King first wins. Therefore, the King cannot move into an attack by a pinned piece, because it would be he who was lost first.

2) The whole point of the 50 move rule is to put a time limit on the offensive player. If he cannot FORCE progress within the 50 moves, then the defense deserves to draw. Also, I fail to see why you think this results in 'the present board situation always taking preference [sic] to future moves'. If one calculates that a certain line reaches the 50 move rule, then he has not disregarded the future moves. It's part of the strategy.

Agree with SG on this.

Don't tamper with things, the game is in a perfect balance.

Add one new rule or remove one current rule and the game becomes
unbalanced, odd, not right. It would create a domino effect that would
ripple through every aspect and phase of the game and destroy it's beauty.

Although the Spanish lads at the Royal court re-invented the game
we play today by improving the power of the Bishop and the Queen.

I sometimes think some kind of of unseen power had in it's influence in
this matter. It's the perfect game full of enigmas and chamring possibilities.
It's far to perfect to come from the mind of mere humans.

This is a draw. White to play



Add just one pawn.



Now it's a win.

One thing I'd like to see, not a rule change how the game is played,
that is sacred.

But a rule stating a player cannot resign.
The game must be played out to a Mate. Which after all is the object of the game.

If you want to resign then create a sui-mate like I did in Game 7573011
(see below, I'm White, a piece down so I constrcuted a self-mate).

It's never going to happen but often think a tournament with such a
rule would toss up some imaginative and amusing mates.

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 raw by the 50 move rule (the present board situation always taking preference to future moves).

1) In your scenario under the current rules the victor still delivers the first fatal blow to the opponent's king. You move one turn each and if you want rationale for why the deceased king's men don't get retribution... make a different story.

The evil king of the dark empire fell under the sword of the white knight! And after years of suffering his cruelty the men rose up and cheered.

Actually a rule I would add would be:

"A draw may not be negiotated in the first 15(*) moves."

(*) the actual number is open for discussion. And yes I know that people wnating a draw can still play any number of moves into a dead drawn position, but still I think the question of short draws could be cleared up.

I guess greenpawn's 'play till mate' (or bare kings) would solve the issue of short draws.

Did you guys know Blackburne wanted the en passant rule abolished?
I don't know his reasoning.anybody?

toet.

From Winters Chess Notes.

"‘Mr Blackburne held one peculiar view on chess.

I showed him a problem in which en passant occurred.
He at once said he thought that when an International Chess Federation is formed,

(FIDE was then still a pipe-dream - GP).

One of their first acts will be to abolish PxP en passant from the game of chess,
and I think he meant it, for in later years he adhered to that view.’

John Keeble: page 402 of the October 1924 BCM.

I like the en passant rule.

A pawn can move two squares on it's first move - just like a King. (castling).
When it reaches the 8th rank it can become a QUeen.

The en passant rule puts the pawn firmly in it's place.
It may think it's clever by moving two squares on it's first move
and be King for a move, but it can still be captured.

Also upon the reaching the 8th rank you can promote it to a hated Knight.
How galling must that be.

Pawns hate Knights because when the Knights jump over them they
shout rude things at them and try to clip their bald heads.

(examine your pawns, you will find small dents in the head of each one)

Unlike the polite Bishop who glides between them often complementing on their structure.

I notice a number of posters have correctly pointed out about the turn based nature of chess, so how about allowing a mated player one move to respond to the mate to allow mutual checkmate and thus draw. I also, as someone suggested, think the rules should be changed to require the capture of the king, although this would change little in reality as one would still announce checkmate (though now player 2 gets a chance to mutually checkmate). After all, war is not turn based (though it would explain the US army's failures in Iraq)

Such as, in this position,

This in the current rules is checkmate, so with the rules I propose, black would earn a draw with 1....Kxe7; 2 Bxe7 Qxe1 ½-½

Originally posted by toeternitoe
I guess greenpawn's 'play till mate' (or bare kings) would solve the issue of short draws.

Did you guys know Blackburne wanted the en passant rule abolished?
I don't know his reasoning.anybody?

toet.

I am not against a draw when the position is such that a capture would bring the loss of one of the two players. So we might keep the 50 moves rule.

Rephrasing:

A draw can only occur with two bare Kings, or the application of the 50move rule. Stalemates keep to be a draw by force.

Blasphemy from Andrelious.

Such a rule would destroy hundreds of the games most brilliant
combinations in one eveil stroke.

Not to mention the fact that you are moving a King into check.

What next?

We can reach this position after 1. e3 e6 2. Ke2 Ke7 3. Kf3 Kf6 4. Kf4 Kf5.



then 5.Kxf5 exf5.



An absolute draw after 5 moves. The game is dead. Andrelious has killed Chess.

Of course I did a quick scan of your games to see if you could have
profited from this 'new Andrelious ' rule.

Nothing.
But I did spot this position from Game 7609465 Black in check to play.



You pulled the Queen back to e7. Better was 6...Ne7.



See how one developing move can suddenly fill the board with tricks and traps.
White cannot take Bishop. 7.Qxc5 Nd3+.
(which is a threat as well as Qxf2+, Nc2+ and 7.Qxg7 Rg8).

These backward Knight trick-shot moves are often missed.

Surely nobody would fall for such a one move trick?

Veager - greenpawn (8 moves)

I can see what you are saying, and I mostly agree. The rule I proposed would only apply in the situation I initally explained, whereby the checkmating piece is only protected by a piece that would allow the king to be captured if moved.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
From Winters Chess Notes.

"‘Mr Blackburne held one peculiar view on chess.

I showed him a problem in which en passant occurred.
He at once said he thought that when an International Chess Federation is formed,

(FIDE was then still a pipe-dream - GP).

One of their first acts will be to abolish PxP en passant from the game of chess,
and ...[text shortened]...

Unlike the polite Bishop who glides between them often complementing on their structure.

So if Blackburne was against En Passant, did he ever use it?

I bet he did. 😀