Chess should be bigger

For many years I have this opinion, which was also Capablanca's amd Ficsher's, that chess is too small, and for this reason, grandmaster games are boring and are often a draw. I think chess would be much better if it was 9x9 or 10x10 instead of 8x8. It would be a much deeper strategic game and would have much more interesting tactics. Also it would be much more varied and most importantly, more fun to play. Also it wouldn't have so many draws on GM level.

I am in the opposite pair of shoes.  I need a board 3x3 just to be average.

Tic tac toe may be the perfect game for you.

arent there 8x10 boards?..

Capablanca Chess for 8x10, and Grand Chess, for 10x10. Grand Chess is basically Capablanca chess with stretch marks. They're actually pretty enjoyable.

Different-sized variants are a pretty big thing (pun intended, but there are small ones, too) in Shogi, and they can get pretty ridiculous.

Dang that would be hard

Big enough?

Shogi is insane :)

All the pieces are different right?

It doesn't count if the board is set up the wrong way around like that... Well, not unless the OP wanted even further changes to the game...

I recall finding somewhere a program written that played 6-dimensional chess on a 2x2x2x2x2x2 board--making 64 squares. I imagine the game not playing too differently from regular chess, depending on how the pieces move; the big difference would be that computers think in ten dimensions as easily as they think in three, and humans have a bit more difficulty visualizing that many.

I think aside from pawns, there's no more than two of any piece. Plus many have unique promotions. Unless I missed something in my lookthrough, no two differently-named pieces in any one variant have the same moves--though they seemt o have exhausted nearly every combination.

Why do people insist that a game that hasnt been solved needs to be changed?

I don't think there's any imperative to change it, solved or not. Tinkering with it, though, is always good. We play and explore within the rules; why not play and explore with the rules, as well?

Call me a purist.  I just think the game is fine the way it is.  

Play this version of medieval chess:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-little-chess-village-part-ii

That's a fair opinion. My argument is that Chess itself is a result of such tinkering, being a variant that evolved along with many others; some of those--like Thai and Ethiopian chess (Makruk and Senterej)--are closer to the original game. I see it as too subjective of a thing to declare one objectively the best.

A big part of the problem with the constant draws and Black's low chance to win is because of opening theory. 960 chess solves that by keeping the game the same and only randomising the starting position.

Also, maybe draws should be 1 point and wins 3, like in football/soccer. That should incentivise players to go on the attack. Especially players who try to avoid elimination and need 3 points would play very sharply and we'd get some crazy games!

Any thoughts on these 2 ideas?

I dont have a problem with the GM draws.  If that is what they want to do, then so be it.  Speeding up the game to make it more interesting is wrong.  Just My Opinion.

I do like the "Sophia Rules", and the scoring system of 3 points = a win, 1 point = a draw.  

But since i dont play at that level, i dont think i have a right to tell them how to play.

It's already bigger than a bread box.  Just how big do you want it to be?