Change Chess Rules?

Is there any chess rule that you dont like that you wish would be changed or removed? 

Yes. I don't like the rule which says that even if a player loses on time the game is a draw if there is insufficient material to mate. The 50 move rule is there to cover that kind of situation, if the fool hasn't left himself enough time to play the last 50 moves then he deserves to lose!

Well thought out!

If a player (aka "the fool" ) hasn't kept enough material on the board to mate, then they deserve the draw (if/when the other player runs out of time). They certainly don't deserve a win.

Why? The clock is meant to be decisive. Why do they deserve the draw?

They've managed their time better, which is a decisive element of the game. They've sacrificed the quality of their position on the board for time on the clock, which is a perfectly rational thing to do, unless some fool introduces a rule which says "yes, well done for managing your time better, but you can't have the win you deserve because I'm going to arbitrarily create a caveat which means all your excellent time management will come to nothing". No, it's a dreadful rule which needs to be got rid of. I suppose I would grudgingly allow it to still exist in bullet chess, but even then I dislike the idea. 

But the thing is, it is impossible for the player with insufficient material to get a checkmate. There is a reason OTB tourney's have such a big push for time increments and delay (it is the default for FIDE and the USCF) ... because the players should decide the game and not the time.

Generally speaking, such results mainly happen in no delay/increment events and losing all your material isn't really managing your time better.

The time is under the players control as much as the pieces are, so of course winning or losing on time is the players decision! 

If time is decisive then it is managing your time better to sacrifice material for a win on time. 

I doubt very many games that fall under insufficient material happen because the player with that deficit was sacrificing in an attempt to win on time (unless they didn't know the rule). Because, since that is a rule, it would be better to maintain at least one pawn and win instead.

Playing/leaving the king into check should be legal. Quite frankly, if you're gonna make a blunder of that magnitude, you might deserve to lose. Additionally, this means that what would be a draw by stalemate would likely turn into a loss by zugzwang for the player who can't move anything other than the king.

Yes, because it is a rule at the moment. So that's why I want it changed. Have you not fully grasped what this thread is about?

I disagree that the clock is meant to be decisive.  It occasionally turns out to be, but I think it is meant to simply limit the game to a practical length of time.  I think the players' skill is what the vast majority of people would prefer be decisive.  It is based on that premise that if a player's skill (or lack there of) has led to a loss of any possible mating material, then the vast majority of people would agree that that player does not deserve to win.

I, personally, don't want any rule changes.  It seems like any rule change would make it a different game, and then we've got to re-learn stuff.  Yuck.  I guess I just don't like change.  I'm also opposed to replay challenges in sports for similar reasons.

I want the rules to stay put. Then the historical games will be easier to understand in the future.

The clock is just there to stop games lasting forever, or spoiltsports refusing to move if they are losing.

It's not meant to win the game, that's a side-effect. The pieces are meant to win the game.

(Says the guy who has played over 20000 bullet games on this site )

The Fifty Move Rule.

Some checkmates require more moves than this to achieve (I don't know how to do them) , and conversely some require less (when possible the Knight and Bishop requires no more tha 33).

I agree with what I assume to be the purpose of the rule - not having a player dragging out a game that is a draw - but not its side effects.

FIDE did try introducing a list of exceptions to the 50-move-rule a few years ago, but scrapped them pretty quickly because they proved just too complicated.

You could sit and analyse a position forever. But that wouldn't be practical for a game, so instead the game is to analyse as best you can in the time available. A player who loses on time has not analysed as best they can in the time available, they have overstepped the time available, they have gained an advantage by using more time, they shouldn't be rewarded for this, they should lose on time.

The clock tells you how long you have available to think, and if you overstep that then you have failed catastrophically. People who lose on time deserve nothing.

I completely understand what the thread is about. Have you not fully grasped that I'm just stating my opinion that the rule does not need to change?

if your playing so fast the you lose all of your material why would you deserve win. all that would be doing is rewarding mindless wood pushing