H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, Sep 12, 2018 12:06 PM UTC:
I don't see how this can even be a point of discussion. The fact that other variants than orthodox Chess exist that are more popular in the world as a whole, and certainly more popular in the areas where they originated shows that things like board size and how exactly the pieces move can very well be different without jeopardizing the success of the game. How we play Chess is mostly determined by historic accident.
Pieces like Knight are not a necessity; e.g. Chu Shogi, which was the dominant Chess variant in Japan for many centuries, doesn't have Knights. The idea of a Knight is rather obvious: it has the closest move that a Queen does not have. Oblique moves increase the variety of moves. This contributes to the appeal of the game, because it allows attacks on other pieces that are not automatically reciprocated. But Shogi addresses this by having the pieces move in non-8-fold-symmetric ways, or limit their sliding range, so that the table of what can safely attack what can be dense enough without oblique moves.
Most rules of Chess serve a purpose, but that doesn't automatically imply they are the unique solution to the problem they cure. E.g. without double push (or on a deeper board) the opening would be boringly slow. But Asian variants solve this by starting the Pawns in more advanced locations.
The rule 'stalemate = draw' seems rather arbitrary to me. The biggest impact of that rule is that it makes the KPK end-game more drawish. I am not sure if that should be seen as an advantage. It also doesn't seem to matter much whether the initial setup has reflection or rotation symmetry. Whether the white King starts on the left or right half of the board I would not even consider a rule change.
I don't see how this can even be a point of discussion. The fact that other variants than orthodox Chess exist that are more popular in the world as a whole, and certainly more popular in the areas where they originated shows that things like board size and how exactly the pieces move can very well be different without jeopardizing the success of the game. How we play Chess is mostly determined by historic accident.
Pieces like Knight are not a necessity; e.g. Chu Shogi, which was the dominant Chess variant in Japan for many centuries, doesn't have Knights. The idea of a Knight is rather obvious: it has the closest move that a Queen does not have. Oblique moves increase the variety of moves. This contributes to the appeal of the game, because it allows attacks on other pieces that are not automatically reciprocated. But Shogi addresses this by having the pieces move in non-8-fold-symmetric ways, or limit their sliding range, so that the table of what can safely attack what can be dense enough without oblique moves.
Most rules of Chess serve a purpose, but that doesn't automatically imply they are the unique solution to the problem they cure. E.g. without double push (or on a deeper board) the opening would be boringly slow. But Asian variants solve this by starting the Pawns in more advanced locations.
The rule 'stalemate = draw' seems rather arbitrary to me. The biggest impact of that rule is that it makes the KPK end-game more drawish. I am not sure if that should be seen as an advantage. It also doesn't seem to matter much whether the initial setup has reflection or rotation symmetry. Whether the white King starts on the left or right half of the board I would not even consider a rule change.