Do you have any suggestions about the Laws of Chess changes?

Well I have never seen a submarine that could fly like a plane and I have never seen a fighter jet go under water like a submarine so yes some soldiers have limitations just like chess pieces.

I wasn't comparing chess to war I was saying chess was a war training game intended to make officers have forethought and make them become planners.
This was way back 2000 years ago when the original chess was invented.

Now it is a game and en passant sucks!

@flopwrist said
Well I have never seen a submarine that could fly like a plane and I have never seen a fighter jet go under water like a submarine so yes some soldiers have limitations just like chess pieces.

I wasn't comparing chess to war I was saying chess was a war training game intended to make officers have forethought and make them become planners.
This was way back 2000 years ago when the original chess was invented.

Now it is a game and en passant sucks!

I disagree(as you'd expect!!)
En passant is a tactic if you like.
Your opponent must decide on his next move and his next move only whether or not to invoke the rule.
Similar decisions would have had to be made by commanders in military conflicts.
I'm not saying change should not happen but only if it improves the game.
I can't agree where stopping en passant in chess would satisfy this.
I don't know without looking if en passant is possible in our game, but if it is I'll try it just to wind you up!!(just joking)

LoL 😉

If pawns can capture en passant, then pieces should be allowed to as well, just to be fair. Let's say a white pawn moves to g4, bypassing the g3 square that a black rook was attacking. The rook should then be allowed to capture it. The move could be notated "Rxg3 e.p."

@ogb said
Stalemate should be a win, not a draw..

Agree.
It's a win in checkers, why not chess?
Also I'm on the fence about en passant , leaning towards abolishing it.

@flopwrist said
I don't see you winning this argument. 😉

He just did.

@flopwrist said
I wasn't comparing chess to war I was saying chess was a war training game intended to make officers have forethought and make them become planners.
This was way back 2000 years ago when the original chess was invented.

Now it is a game and en passant sucks!

Chess has never been a war training game.
"War games" have been used by military commanders for at least 2,500 years.

Chess dates back about 1500 years.(India)
The modern game is about 500 years old. (Southern Europe)

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32542306

In another article it says Napoleon had his generals play chess to get them to be better generals.

Just because it is ridiculous doesn't mean it didn't happen.
In the past chess was used as a war training game.

Fact 😉

@ogb said
Stalemate should be a win, not a draw..

agreed 100%. Stalemate is scored a win

I also wouldn't mind seeing an en prise king captured.

@earl-of-trumps said
agreed 100%. Stalemate is scored a win

I also wouldn't mind seeing an en prise king captured.

The latter is the rule in blitz.

@flopwrist said
In another article it says Napoleon had his generals play chess to get them to be better generals.

Just because it is ridiculous doesn't mean it didn't happen.

True; both the Iraq war and the Yugoslav match happened. Still doesn't make chess a wargame.

By the way, Nappy was a famously enthusiastic, but also a notoriously useless chess player. He though himself moderately strong, but you or I could've beaten him without trying. Which us another contrast with real war, where he was so strong that he was kicking the Limeys' backsides into a wicker basket until the Jerries showed up and won the battle.

1) If castling is possible, why is uncastling not? If the king and rooks have not made any move that makes castling impossible then one ought to be able to castle kingside, uncastle and then castle queenside and back again to one's heart's content.

2) Why can't one not castle out of check, since one can move out of check I don't see a reason for it. Moving through or into check is a different matter as the king can't do that with normal king moves.

3) So, if one can't castle out of check why not replace the king with a frightened rabbit, which can't move out of check at all. So 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Bxf7# would be one of the quickest games. The French Defence would be really popular under these rules.

4) Alternatively the rabbit doesn't have to be frightened and can capture to get out of check, but remain transfixed in the face of a long range check. In which case the shortest possible game would be 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Bxf7 Kxf7 4. Qf3# or Qh5#.

@flopwrist said
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32542306

Just read your link.
It doesn't support your hypothesis at all.

@deepthought said
2) Why can't one not castle out of check, since one can move out of check I don't see a reason for it. Moving through or into check is a different matter as the king can't do that with normal king moves.

The logic of that is a bit of a puzzle. Castling is a king move and forbidding
a certain move of a piece in a certain circumstance seems arbitrary. I can
only think that the rule is there to preserve any mating patterns prior to the
introduction of castling. (The same thought process that introduced en passant)