Time for a New Pawn Move?

A friend of mine has been trying to convince me that it's time for a change in the options a pawn has under the standard rules we now abide by.  That is, that a pawn should be able to retreat one square at any time except when it promotes thus no longer being a pawn.

There hasn't been any appreciable change in the rules regarding pieces for a couple of hundred years.  The pieces all have the option to move about to & fro according to their designated rule.  But the poor pawn must always march forward.  If chess is a symbolic form of battle, then shouldn't the foot soldiers be allowed some retreat?

I myself am admittedly reluctant to change but my friend's suggestion has gotten me to thinking.  Perhaps this would be a subtle enough change to infuse new creativity in chess overall.  Programmers & masters would have to rise to the challenge if such a rule was put in place.

So, is it worthy of consideration or should it be relegated to the dust-bin of outlandish chess variants?

It's a stupid idea.

A) Pawn strategies and pawn structures are all based off the fact that pawns can't move backwards. It's common knowledge that you should think before you move your pawns.

B) Chess isn't exactly realistic. Why can Queens move like a bull on steroids while the King can only inch around the board? How do Towers move? Why can Bishops only move diagonally? Why can't pawns kill the guy in front of him? etc. etc.

C) Entire chess theory would go bonkers.

Yeah, calling this change subtle? It's about as subtle as a hippopotamus.

+1

In all honesty it would be less subtle to add 2 new pieces and play on a 10x10 board.

I agree this idea would never fly in traditional chess.  

Taking a step back though, this would be a fun variant.  If you ever make it up to Pittsburgh anpu3, I'll play with you.  What such a variant should be called is the real question.

I vote for 'Insanity Chess'.

Nothing says you cannot have your own house-rules.  Make it your own chess variation.

A friend and I sometimes played without pawns just for the fun of it. Wild and crazy game, but really challenging.  None lasted long, however.  Makes me appreciate the pawns.  

 I think it is challenging that the pawn cannot move backward. That rule causes me to truly concentrate before making a pawn move. It makes the pawn unique.  

 I think playing Seirawan chess helps my regular chess game, and anything that can help it is worth doing, especially when I enjoy doing it. Hey, variety is the spice of life. 

But then, I am not attempting to become a GM or even raise my level to 2000.  I want to improve, of course, but I play chess for the sheer enjoyment of it.  It never ceases to intrigue and fascinate me. 

Queens can move however they want, and you can't tell a woman she's wrong!  The king is fat from eating too much, so he gets winded after one square.  Rooks (seige towers)  have wheels, but they can only be attached on the sides, so they can only be pushed horizontally or vertically.  Bishops are trying to make sure they're..... always right and so remain on the "right" color, with the white and black squares symbolizing different viewpoints within Christianity?  Knights' helmet visors are too thick, so they can only see obscure spots to aim at, and they jump because they don't want to hit any of the in between pieces they can't see.  Pawns can't take from the front because they're just pitiful soldiers, so they're not skilled enough swordsmen to take anybody head on.  They have to attack sneakily from the side.

I think that about covers it.

Firefalcon, this is a classic!  I love it!  It is a great example for teaching students how to remember how the chessmen move, especially the bishops.  People who are black & white in their judgment have always fascinated me, and yes, sometimes annoy me. 

I never said Chess should be realistic and should be all black and white (excluding the chessboard it self).  All I said was that Chess wasn't realistic anyways, so Pawns aren't expected to be able to retreat.

Firefalcon, although your examples are "stretching it", those explanations make some good mnemonic devices! However, for Knights, I've always seen them as Horses that can jump over hurdles anyways, and it seems to be the most realistic piece.

Interesting idea. But it would totally rewrite strategy - - probably even more than adding a 9th file with a new piece. Maybe try making that an option only once per game, sort of like castling. This would create some new play but not change the game quite so much?!?

How about a compromise?  Let's say a pawn can only move back to block check?

This wouldn't deepen the game any. If anything, it would make the game more shallow.

Chess Variants by Joao Pedro Neto

Chess Variant Applets

Chess variants if you like it.

ride a lot of horses with one leg shorter than the other or something? 

I like the idea's behind the explanation of the pieces. That was a fun thought. I think, if you look at the explanation of chess as a game of strategy with both players have army's of equal type pieces, it almost doesn't matter what pieces you have. The way the pieces move as it is, They all function to protect the king at the beginning of the game, and as you move them to attack the opponent, they remove thier ability to protect the king. The idea of moving pawns backwards would move  away from this balance in the game, however, it would be an awesome variation to try on a non-standard level and you should try playing that way with your friend.

Why all these threads about changing rules, adding new pieces etc.?

Is your chess mastery so great that the game doesn't challenge you anymore? 

 I was wondering the same thing.  I would like to become good at regular chess before I start playing different variants or changing the rules.  Heck, I haven't even bothered to try Chess960 yet because I want to get a good grip on regular chess.

That's just plain demoralizing; I suck at chess so bad that even the guy who thinks making pawns move backwards would be a good idea is rated higher than me.

On chess being too challenging to try variants:

People play games for fun. If you want to be better at strategy and tatics you have to be willing to look at things differently sometimes. Some people thrive from playing variants. It allows them to come up with a better way of thinking in the main thing they are learning.

An instance of this: If you play that a pawn can move backwards, it doesn't take much away from the game. A piece move is a piece move. Though it takes away from the Static movement aspect of strategy, it makes a game have more variance in the attack vs. defence type tempo in a game. In order to move a pawn backwards, you have to choose not to move another pieve instead of that pawn. Also, it will make a person much more aware of draws. And the en passe rule becomes useless in such a game. All these come into play for a game with this very strange variation. It may help this particular person to learn to respect thier pawns better. Brain cells are always created from thinking, and if this inspires thinking, then it can only be good for the person.

Also, please don't be demoralized by your ranking. Just because your ranking is low doesn't mean you are bad. And everyone, including grandmasters, make mistakes. I was reading on Wikipedia how a grandmaster thought they had a Draw from repetition in a tournament, and in fact it was not a draw. This caused the particular grandmaster to widdle his clock by three minutes. After a few more repetitions he got his draw, but it was still embarrassing, I'm sure.