I've been following this thread off and on, as I have a fondness for what others see as huge variants. I would argue that when you come to something like this: "A fundamental issue is that it takes at least as many moves as you have pieces to move all your pieces" you are seeing a restriction that may not need to be there.
Chessplayers as a group seem to be inherently conservative, and highly resistant to significant changes to any version of chess, and even minor changes. So something as radical as suggesting a multi-move approach to speeding the game up, which it will, leaps past heresy directly into the depths of anathema. So be it. Use 2 moves per player-turn to speed up the game. If that is too radical, allow an optional pawn move each turn. Move a piece and a pawn each turn, with no requirement to make the pawn move.
Hi, HG.
I've been following this thread off and on, as I have a fondness for what others see as huge variants. I would argue that when you come to something like this: "A fundamental issue is that it takes at least as many moves as you have pieces to move all your pieces" you are seeing a restriction that may not need to be there.
Chessplayers as a group seem to be inherently conservative, and highly resistant to significant changes to any version of chess, and even minor changes. So something as radical as suggesting a multi-move approach to speeding the game up, which it will, leaps past heresy directly into the depths of anathema. So be it. Use 2 moves per player-turn to speed up the game. If that is too radical, allow an optional pawn move each turn. Move a piece and a pawn each turn, with no requirement to make the pawn move.