The game of chess needs 2 major changes.......

[Chessqueen]

There are so many Engine vs engine draws with with the current rules of chess that I believe that these 2 rules should be changed. 1st. If any side runs out of moves the game should be delcared a lost as long as the other side still has some legal moves, this will reduce the amount of draws by this type of stalemate. 2nd In chess if your opponent offer you any piece to be trade the opponent should be forced to take that piece or if the opponent give you choises of taking more than one pieces with his last move then you should be obligated to take of of the pieces being offered like in Checkers, I believe that is the reason why there are not to many draws in checkers.

[Bo Persson]

In checkers most of the pieces have the same value. In chess, they do not.

With a forced capture, you would have to hide your queen, or she would be fed defended pawns all the time. That would create quite a different game!

[Chessqueen]

All the pawns have the same value and all the back rank pieces ass well, it is only a matter of being extra careful with where you place your most valuable pieces, just like when you have promoted some of your stones to Kings in checkers that you have to be extra careful of not being forced to trade them down.

[Chessqueen]

There are so many Engine vs engine draws with with the current rules of chess that I believe that these 2 rules should be changed. 1st. If any side runs out of moves the game should be declared a lost as long as the other side still has some legal moves, this will reduce the amount of draws by this type of stalemate. 2nd In chess if your opponent offer you any piece to be traded the opponent should be forced to take that piece or if the opponent give you choices of taking more than one pieces with his last move then you should be obligated to take one of the pieces being offered like in Checkers, I believe that is the reason why there are not to many draws in checkers.

In checkers most of the pieces have the same value. In chess, they do not.

With a forced capture, you would have to hide your queen, or she would be fed defended pawns all the time. That would create quite a different game!

I thought it over, and I agreed with you since for the 2nd rule to force your opponent to trade, NOT only because you have to be extra careful where you place your most valuable pieces, but because it would change the chess game to a point where CMs, IMs, FMs, and even GMs would be losing 100 of Elos while learning lots of new patterns and the game of chess would become even harder to evaluate the outcome of trading pieces.

NOTE: According to GM Ivanchuk obligated captures makes checkers harder to calculate the outcome of any position instead of having options to trade or defend your position

[lkaufman]

Mandatory capture would change chess beyond recognition, far more than adding new piece types. It might be a great game, but it would be a completely different one. There are many modest rule changes that would dramatically reduce draws (making stalemate a win won't achieve that goal), the most obvious and modest one being to bar repetitions. Or break ties by some material and/or pawn placement count, with Black winning when the count is tied. Even changes like this have big consequences, but they don't invalidate current wins, they just affect games that would otherwise be drawn. As long as a player who has a forced win under current rules would still have a forced win under revised rules, it still feels like chess to me, just with a tiebreak added, whereas changes that invalidate current wins are clearly variants. I might ask, "is Armageddon Chess" still chess, or a chess variant? It has the most severe change possible without invalidating current wins (all draws are awarded to Black, who gets less time to equalize chances), so if that is considered chess, then any change meeting my above condition is also chess and not a variant.

[Graham Banks]

I'd change the points allocated to something as follows (just an example):

1.0 White win
1.4 Black win
0.5 White draw
0.7 Black draw

[CornfedForever]

I'd change the points allocated to something as follows (just an example):

1.0 White win
1.4 Black win
0.5 White draw
0.7 Black draw

Chess needs NO CHANGES for 99.99% of we human beings. BUT....changing the scoring is an idea - only it works only in round robin tourneys where you get the same # of blacks/whites. Even then, you play people of very different ratings so a draw in the first round against someone a few hundred points lower rated is not the same as one later when you might be playing a much higher rated player.

Human chess of course.

[Graham Banks]

I'd change the points allocated to something as follows (just an example):

1.0 White win
1.4 Black win
0.5 White draw
0.7 Black draw

Chess needs NO CHANGES for 99.99% of we human beings.

I agree.

[CornfedForever]

I'd change the points allocated to something as follows (just an example):

1.0 White win
1.4 Black win
0.5 White draw
0.7 Black draw

Chess needs NO CHANGES for 99.99% of we human beings.

I agree.

DAMN you were quick...I did a quick edit to speak of open tourneys vs RR's...and you beat me to it. Impressive.

[Graham Banks]

I'd change the points allocated to something as follows (just an example):

1.0 White win
1.4 Black win
0.5 White draw
0.7 Black draw

Chess needs NO CHANGES for 99.99% of we human beings.

I agree.

DAMN you were quick...I did a quick edit to speak of open tourneys vs RR's...and you beat me to it. Impressive.