The importance of the king makes no sense...

I can't imagine how stupid the guy who invented chess had to be. Who on Earth would make the king the crucial chess piece? Like I already said, I've been playing chess for over 20 years (regular chess), but I especially enjoy matches with some friends, when we make the queen the crucial piece you need to kill, while the king only serves as an attack piece. We also allow the pawns to move backwards (but not attack). The quality of chess improves drastically with those changes. If anyone else likes to change some rules just for fun, please share your experience :)

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stalemate-needs-to-be-abolished

That

Now this

Whats next ?

I sometimes like to change the rules so that If I'm losing I can switch sides with my opponent.

I understand what you mean but then those games of yours are not really chess.
There's plenty of precedents of kings being non-combatants.The last British King to lead troops into battle was GeorgeII, 300 years ago. I don't think Victoria, head of the greatest Empire yet, did too much fighting. And no one expects the President(King) of the current global, 'full-spectrum-dominance' Empire to get his hands bloody. Kings, Presidents, Prime-Ministers, Emporers, they all have others to do the fighting and dying for them. In fact, no members of todays ruling classes are ever expected to  fight the wars they forment. Maybe thats (one) of the things wrong with the world. 

Anyway mate - always good to hear from a citizen of another country still flying a 'defaced Union Jack' as their flag. And what a country! Man... to be there now ! Ahhhh...

I don't understand how the quality of chess drastically improves with the changes you mentioned. Chess is how it is, and that's what we like about it.

There are few qualities of chess left after "those changes", it doesn't really even qualify as chess anymore.

I'd love to chat but I've got to run to check out some beginners. Apparently, they've solved the game.

The solution's just over here:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-this-strategy-really-unbeatable

But is he weak enough to really have solved it?

hehe

I wonder if Mittttt will have a tilt at Hollywood and get a chance at  'headin em up and movin on out' ? (Or am I thinking of Rawhide ? And gosh: isn't that Rowdy Yates still the old scene-stealer!)

The king irrelevant?  Who else will wave at the humble pawns and tell them they are doing a good job?  Without the king, the knights and rooks would spend all their time cosying up to the queen for her favour and no combinations would be possible.  Surely it is also useful as a sop to all the fat figureheads who sit and do nothing while other people do all the work of running the country - make them feel important by symbolism! Without the king chess would drag on forever aimlessly; if it was made more powerful people would put it at risk more often.

Besides which and this is maybe the most important factor - other than somewhere to put our coffee cups, what else would we use the "e1" square for?

This thread is irreverent.

Your momma!

Ok, I had nothing else.  Hi grobe!

well.., the best thing to do is switch to checkers. There you dont need to analyse all complexites like stalemate, king safety, tactics.. etc. 

If you cannot handle all this STFU!!

Aww rahim, there is a tradition on the site - if the proposal is ridiculous, hijack it and make it more ridiculous!  I am just tracking this in the hope that random pictures of kittens appear (hint, hint).  Of course, what we really need is someone to say...."Interesting first post, please go on - we want to know more."

@%$#@ feminists

You can play checkers and avoid the King-Queen Stress!

The king needs to be restricted in it's movement because otherwise it would be hard to checkmate, I really don't think of it as a king, it's the price that must be protected.