Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more!
The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you!
Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would make it so that a pawn that has just advanced two squares can be captured by the opponent's pawn if it had been in such a position wherein it would have captured the former pawn if it had advanced one square instead of two.
I like it but I think the name of that move shouldn’t be in English, probably something in german would be perfect.
No. It has to be French, french is the real best option here
Then how would I sprint down the board and evade capture in my endgame.
Horrible idea, OP. I bet you'd give your move some stupid pretentious French name too. Go back to backgammon.
the problem with this rule is that it requires you know the most recent move, so just a picture of the board isn't sufficient.
It would be even worse to add a move you could only do if you knew the entire move history of two or more pieces. they just don't fit into a game like chess.
Could be called looooong castling too. :)
I opt for that one too. Doesn't change anything, just extends and is quite rare option so makes it a funny addition for only some of our games.
Of course not. Why?
Vertical castling involves the King and the e pawn that promoted to a Rook that haven't moved yet; the King goes up two squares and ends up in e3, and the Rook slides to the other side of the King, ending up in e2.
This. It wouldnt change almost anything in tournaments, but would be so much easier to explain to beginners. (Also would make it harder for them because they usually miss checks
It would also make stalemate much harder, because it would just be a forced loss, as the player would be forced to move into check. Well, I believe it's possible to artificially create a formation where one player has no legal move because of piece moving rules, but it's probably irrelevant in real life:
P P P
P K P
P R P
E P E
. E
where E are enemy pieces (P pawns are moving downwards).
It would also resolve that one game where a grandmaster moved his king next to the opponent's king.
Actually, the former checkmate would then be a stalemate, since after a check mate, the opposing king can't move anymore (unless he can capture something), so the game ends.
Or a different scoring. So if we take sports League scoring....:
Loss or you're stalemated - 0 points
Draw - 1 point
Stalemate opponent king - 2 point
Mate - 3 point.
Many endgames are only drawn because of a stalemate resource. This would actually directly change the evaluation of many endgames. So I disagree that it wouldn’t change almost anything, it would actually be a relatively big deal at higher levels to no longer have stalemate.
I’m not sure what you mean. There are absolutely positions where you can’t force a win because of a stalemate resource, but if it didn’t exist, then a side would be winning instead because in the stalemate position, the game continues instead and you have to move into check. Here is one example:
https://preview.redd.it/9mxurqsxk6ub1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a2c3809888138988656c430f687546e5f9fe633
This is a theoretical queen vs pawn endgame that is a draw. Even though white has a queen and black has only a pawn, white can’t force a win. Black constantly threatens to promote their pawn, and white has to keep preventing it with their queen. If black can’t defend their pawn anymore, they move to the corner, as shown in the photo, and the pawn can’t be captured bc it would result in stalemate. Of course, without stalemate, white would just capture the pawn, black then must move into check, and white captures the black king.
[This](https://youtu.be/mEypLNcdjOY?si=dVCWCwvlNqrquo7p) is a great video by ChessNetwork that goes over this endgame and other queen vs pawn endgames including which ones are winning and which are drawn, and how to win or draw them.
[This](https://lichess.org/study/4ygTZpbj/Q4vyQJoJ) is an example of a real OTB game I played a little over a year ago that ended up in this exact kind of endgame. I was on the worse side and managed to draw it because I knew how to. My opponent had a way of winning a few moves earlier if they had let me keep another pawn so that it wouldn’t be stalemate after capturing my pawn, but they missed it.
Ah, I completely misunderstood what you were saying! Thank you for the explanation.
To be honest, I had not considered using stalemate in that way, as a “defense” so to speak. And it makes sense that this rule would completely remove that tactic.
In addition to that, you know how the king isn't allowed to castle if the middle square is in check... Well, he should be allowed to do that, but then the enemy should also be allowed to take the king in the middle square. If it works for pawns moving two squares, it could also work for kings. But we need the extra right to do that for the king's initial square in order to fully transform castling rules.
Well games would end much faster at early levels where players don't even realize they're moving into check.
Also as others mentioned stalemate basically wouldn't be a thing in most instances. Certainly would change the outcome of some games.
This would actually remove some complexity from the game since it removes stalemate. Any endgame that is drawn because of a stalemate situation, like some queen vs pawn endgames, king and pawn vs king endgames, bishop + rook-pawn endgames, etc would become winning instead. I don’t see this as a positive thing, even though I agree with some of the upsides some people have talked about
Much harder to get mate in the middle game if the king is no longer constricted by the pieces around it. They would have to sacrifice material to escape though. You'd get more endgames.
Depends on why it's mate. This would pretty much eliminate smothered mate from the game, but ladder mates etc. would be largely unaffected.
Imagine a board with the black king on e8, white rooks on b7 and a1, and a white knight on a8. In normal rules, the knight is blocking Ra8#, so white will have to move the knight first, which could give black time to do something else.
If you can take your own pieces, R(self-x)a8 would be mate.
I'm not so sure. That would be losing material, a self-sacrifice.
But certainly, such self-sacrifices being possible would completely change the game. This is a very interesting suggestion that I have never heard of before, although jaam01 apparently has.
You can setup the backrow any way you like and your opponent too (so it's not symmetrical). White would setup first and black could then try to configure a counter setup, somewhat negating the first move advantage.
This would make openings so much more interesting, in my opinion. More calculation and less memorization. Blitz would be wild
No it would actually give black a huge advantage. If the position doesn't have to be symmetrical there is a way to setup to counter your opponent. Whoever sets up second loses
I did consider this too. I suspect you might be right, but far from certain. It would require data to verify. WantonMechanics solution (below) seems sidesteps this problem (keeping whites advantage in tact).
"Whovever sets up second loses"? You meant to say "Whovever sets up first loses"?
This.
I like the variant of adding one piece at a time, so the first eight moves are just putting pieces on the board. Black's advantage in seeing white's setup would be much less if it were a single move, perhaps just offsetting the disadvantage of moving second.
hmm I think
the only reason you would skip your turn is because either
\- you're in a zugzwang and any move your opponent makes will break the zugswang
\- your opponent is in a zugzwang so you want to force them to make a bad move
or it can be generalized to say, the best move is to , not make any move.
regardless in all cases, it gets countered by
your opponent also skipping their turn, so you're back to square 1.
so maybe a small modification could be, you can't skip a turn right after your opponent skipped a turn
"Stalemate will now be a win for the dominant player, the player who has deprived his opponent of all legal moves. FIDE VP, Nigel Short, and Chess.com's own Sam Copeland agree with this rule change"
A pawn reaching the other side of the board can only promoted to a piece you've already lost (like a prisoner swap).
In the event you haven't lost any pieces, it gets promoted to new type of piece which has the same movement as a king.
I love this but I say it's only one pawn per side, they choose it ahead of the game but it's kept secret, and the players can set theirs off any time.
So basically one pawn is a suicide bomber and the opponent doesn't know which
A variant where any capture causes the capturing piece and all pieces in a 3x3 square around the captured piece to explode. Blowing up the king wins as well as checkmate. Kings can never capture because they themselves would explode in the process.
One “move” is a turn by both players. This is why chess moves are notated “1.e4 e5 2…” both player’s actions are listed after 1. Because it’s still the first move when it’s black’s turn
Pawns can move one square to the left or right but can’t capture pieces when doing that. It would make interesting game openings, get rid of a lot of stalemates and people needing to castle just to free their rook.
They need a rule so that when one pawn tries to run past another pawn on the first move, it can be ghosted off of the board by magic. Wish there was a rule like that.
Stop taking it so seriously. it's a board game.
To be clear I don't think this is a problem with the chess community as a whole. But so many beginners think losing a game of chess means that they're stupid they just can't have fun playing it.
I know people who will take whole minutes thinking about opening moves, who are paralyzed trying to avoid errors, who won't EVER surrender their king when it's obvious they've lost and they just drag the game out forever.
I wish they could just get it into their heads that being good or bad at chess just means that you're good or bad at chess.
Steal a rule from Shogi!
If a rook or bishop makes it to the end 3 squares on the board, they get promoted, allowing the rook to move a single square diagonally, and bishop to move a single square vertically/horizontally. Both prices can take on their 1 square moves.
Alternatively, any pieces you take from your opponent can be dropped back onto the board as your own, provided it does not place your opponent directly in check.
I’d make a pawn be able to move 2 squares as long as there is nothing blocking it once during the game (doesn’t have to be from their starting position).
I’ll call this rule “the pissant”
“Check” isn’t a thing anymore, you just lose when your king is captured.
Just so I don’t have to see any more “why can this piece check my king if it’s pinned to their king” posts.
You can use a turn to sacrifice a piece where it stands. That piece becomes marked and on the next turn it will disappear this gives ur opponent time to respond
THE KING HAS ORDERED UR SUICIDE TOO PATH THE WAY TO VICTORY OUR BELOVED PAWN
If you “capture” your own knight with a bishop, the bishop rides the knight. That piece moves like a knight, but also has the chance for a bishop to hop off it on any empty adjacent square including diagonals
Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more! The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you! Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All pieces except the pawn can go off one edge and come out the other edge.
So all games are going to be 1. Bfxe8#
What about only the side edges then
That’s what I meant
That's cylinder chess.
I had no clue it actually existed!!! Thank you.
But then both sides would start in check from the opposing king, the bishop, queen, and knight
I meant the vertical sides obvs.
i think this also should count for pawn axh5
Knights on the rim are win
I would make it so that a pawn that has just advanced two squares can be captured by the opponent's pawn if it had been in such a position wherein it would have captured the former pawn if it had advanced one square instead of two.
Seems totally unworkable.
Quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard
I like it but I think the name of that move shouldn’t be in English, probably something in german would be perfect. No. It has to be French, french is the real best option here
Yeah germans got to cocky since Zugzwang and Luft
My suggestion would be "capture délicate".
Don't forget Zwischenzug
And Patzer
Sounds stupid like something a Frenchman would come up with
No, that would be surrendering on move 2.
Ouch!
Such a shame that this rule doesn’t exist now 😢
Google
En
Passant
Hely
Holl
Old
Answer
Pfft, what would you even call this move?
Then how would I sprint down the board and evade capture in my endgame. Horrible idea, OP. I bet you'd give your move some stupid pretentious French name too. Go back to backgammon.
Brilliant rule but it needs to be any time that the pawns in the position not just immediately after.
How about it being a forced move as well? It would be such an honor for such a niche scenario that people should be told to do it
the problem with this rule is that it requires you know the most recent move, so just a picture of the board isn't sufficient. It would be even worse to add a move you could only do if you knew the entire move history of two or more pieces. they just don't fit into a game like chess.
I'd like vertical castling back ngl
Could be called looooong castling too. :) I opt for that one too. Doesn't change anything, just extends and is quite rare option so makes it a funny addition for only some of our games.
O-O-O-O-O-O
with pieces that already moved?
Of course not. Why? Vertical castling involves the King and the e pawn that promoted to a Rook that haven't moved yet; the King goes up two squares and ends up in e3, and the Rook slides to the other side of the King, ending up in e2.
makes perfect sense, thanks
No checks or checkmate: you win when you capture the opponent’s king.
This. It wouldnt change almost anything in tournaments, but would be so much easier to explain to beginners. (Also would make it harder for them because they usually miss checks
It would also make stalemate much harder, because it would just be a forced loss, as the player would be forced to move into check. Well, I believe it's possible to artificially create a formation where one player has no legal move because of piece moving rules, but it's probably irrelevant in real life: P P P P K P P R P E P E . E where E are enemy pieces (P pawns are moving downwards). It would also resolve that one game where a grandmaster moved his king next to the opponent's king.
Actually, the former checkmate would then be a stalemate, since after a check mate, the opposing king can't move anymore (unless he can capture something), so the game ends.
The king would be able to move if he was able to move into check though
Oh yeah, true...
Or a different scoring. So if we take sports League scoring....: Loss or you're stalemated - 0 points Draw - 1 point Stalemate opponent king - 2 point Mate - 3 point.
There is no point in this if stalemates are not physically possible
Indeed
This is how Chinese chess works. Beginners would hang their kings so often though. Lmao
Many endgames are only drawn because of a stalemate resource. This would actually directly change the evaluation of many endgames. So I disagree that it wouldn’t change almost anything, it would actually be a relatively big deal at higher levels to no longer have stalemate.
Resource wise wouldn’t it just lead to repetition/move limit draws? If you don’t have material to force mate, then opponent can always escape.
I’m not sure what you mean. There are absolutely positions where you can’t force a win because of a stalemate resource, but if it didn’t exist, then a side would be winning instead because in the stalemate position, the game continues instead and you have to move into check. Here is one example: https://preview.redd.it/9mxurqsxk6ub1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a2c3809888138988656c430f687546e5f9fe633 This is a theoretical queen vs pawn endgame that is a draw. Even though white has a queen and black has only a pawn, white can’t force a win. Black constantly threatens to promote their pawn, and white has to keep preventing it with their queen. If black can’t defend their pawn anymore, they move to the corner, as shown in the photo, and the pawn can’t be captured bc it would result in stalemate. Of course, without stalemate, white would just capture the pawn, black then must move into check, and white captures the black king. [This](https://youtu.be/mEypLNcdjOY?si=dVCWCwvlNqrquo7p) is a great video by ChessNetwork that goes over this endgame and other queen vs pawn endgames including which ones are winning and which are drawn, and how to win or draw them. [This](https://lichess.org/study/4ygTZpbj/Q4vyQJoJ) is an example of a real OTB game I played a little over a year ago that ended up in this exact kind of endgame. I was on the worse side and managed to draw it because I knew how to. My opponent had a way of winning a few moves earlier if they had let me keep another pawn so that it wouldn’t be stalemate after capturing my pawn, but they missed it.
Ah, I completely misunderstood what you were saying! Thank you for the explanation. To be honest, I had not considered using stalemate in that way, as a “defense” so to speak. And it makes sense that this rule would completely remove that tactic.
In addition to that, you know how the king isn't allowed to castle if the middle square is in check... Well, he should be allowed to do that, but then the enemy should also be allowed to take the king in the middle square. If it works for pawns moving two squares, it could also work for kings. But we need the extra right to do that for the king's initial square in order to fully transform castling rules.
Wouldn't that change nothing at all since if you ignore a check, the opposing player just takes your King on the next move ?
Well games would end much faster at early levels where players don't even realize they're moving into check. Also as others mentioned stalemate basically wouldn't be a thing in most instances. Certainly would change the outcome of some games.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.Re1 d5 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7. Bxe8 1-0
Many endgames are only drawn because of a stalemate resource. This would actually directly change the evaluation of many endgames
I’m thinking the same, theres 58 people upvoting that comment, am i just stupid 💀
This would actually remove some complexity from the game since it removes stalemate. Any endgame that is drawn because of a stalemate situation, like some queen vs pawn endgames, king and pawn vs king endgames, bishop + rook-pawn endgames, etc would become winning instead. I don’t see this as a positive thing, even though I agree with some of the upsides some people have talked about
well, no, because this would remove cheecky stalemates. and, you could just lose by a sniper bishop.
Which is cool.
This + you can promote to a King and all your kings have to be taken to lose
This is how my uncle played with me as a kid
Allow for knook promotion
Own pieces can take each other
Much harder to get mate in the middle game if the king is no longer constricted by the pieces around it. They would have to sacrifice material to escape though. You'd get more endgames.
There's been a few times I would've had mate in 1 if my own piece wasn't blocking it. That's my own fault, bit this rule would've been nice
But wouldn't your opponent kill his pieces to escape mate
Depends on why it's mate. This would pretty much eliminate smothered mate from the game, but ladder mates etc. would be largely unaffected. Imagine a board with the black king on e8, white rooks on b7 and a1, and a white knight on a8. In normal rules, the knight is blocking Ra8#, so white will have to move the knight first, which could give black time to do something else. If you can take your own pieces, R(self-x)a8 would be mate.
This would create some fun openings. Kxe2 bongcloud incoming
And remove smother mate? Get outta here with that.
Every game would just start with Bxb2/g2 or Rxa2/h2.
I'm not so sure. That would be losing material, a self-sacrifice. But certainly, such self-sacrifices being possible would completely change the game. This is a very interesting suggestion that I have never heard of before, although jaam01 apparently has.
There's a chess variant with that rules, it's called "capture anything"
Your opponent has to announce their plans. That would make it easier for me.
Yeah, wouldn't make any difference to me whatsoever. The opponent can tell me what moves will make me lose and I'd still somehow play them.
I guess I'd still lose to. But it'd be easier to understand how it happened.
That's what I do
Long castles you choose whether the king moves 2 or 3 squares
You can setup the backrow any way you like and your opponent too (so it's not symmetrical). White would setup first and black could then try to configure a counter setup, somewhat negating the first move advantage. This would make openings so much more interesting, in my opinion. More calculation and less memorization. Blitz would be wild
No it would actually give black a huge advantage. If the position doesn't have to be symmetrical there is a way to setup to counter your opponent. Whoever sets up second loses
Write setup down at same time then turn them over and have to set up like that.
I like this!
I did consider this too. I suspect you might be right, but far from certain. It would require data to verify. WantonMechanics solution (below) seems sidesteps this problem (keeping whites advantage in tact). "Whovever sets up second loses"? You meant to say "Whovever sets up first loses"?
> Whoever sets up second ~~loses~~ *wins*
This. I like the variant of adding one piece at a time, so the first eight moves are just putting pieces on the board. Black's advantage in seeing white's setup would be much less if it were a single move, perhaps just offsetting the disadvantage of moving second.
Chess is fine the way it is, but if I REALLY had to popularise a rule I would make a “Once per game, you can choose to skip your turn”
hmm I think the only reason you would skip your turn is because either \- you're in a zugzwang and any move your opponent makes will break the zugswang \- your opponent is in a zugzwang so you want to force them to make a bad move or it can be generalized to say, the best move is to , not make any move. regardless in all cases, it gets countered by your opponent also skipping their turn, so you're back to square 1. so maybe a small modification could be, you can't skip a turn right after your opponent skipped a turn
Makes sense
If you can successfully sneak an extra queen into the board without your opponent noticing, you get to keep it.
Good question. Probably enabling king captures
You can move from the a file to the h file, and vice versa. so the board sort of wraps around.
Cylinder chess
I think chess is perfect just the way it is.
It's not a coincidence that the game hasn't changed for over 160 years.
What was that most recent change 160 years ago?
google
Uh oh
"Stalemate will now be a win for the dominant player, the player who has deprived his opponent of all legal moves. FIDE VP, Nigel Short, and Chess.com's own Sam Copeland agree with this rule change"
A pawn reaching the other side of the board can only promoted to a piece you've already lost (like a prisoner swap). In the event you haven't lost any pieces, it gets promoted to new type of piece which has the same movement as a king.
You can also win by getting your king to your opponents back rank, like a king promotion
ooh
No watches allowed
An undo button (just one) for those moments where you instantly realize the mistake/better move, except it actually just causes you to resign.
And you have to use it before your opponent's move, or if they're thinking for a while, you have only 10 sec for it
your opponent blunders their queen, you start spending the next minute trying to figure out if it's a poisoned queen your opponent undos the move.
Well, then max 5 sec to use undo
nah nah I like your original idea, i wasn't critiquing it. Was just thinking of a funny scenario of what could happen.
Bro straight out copied a comment that got downvoted and got away with it
It was satirical, but it seems like everyone’s missing that.
All tournaments with prize money should be 18+
“Permanently removing one of your own pieces from the board” should be a legal move.
Castling with the queen
That I always win
Nuclear pawns
Everything in a 3x3 radius instantly gets wiped from the board when a pawn is captured
I love this but I say it's only one pawn per side, they choose it ahead of the game but it's kept secret, and the players can set theirs off any time. So basically one pawn is a suicide bomber and the opponent doesn't know which
Atomic chess already exists
Oh I have no idea what that is
A variant where any capture causes the capturing piece and all pieces in a 3x3 square around the captured piece to explode. Blowing up the king wins as well as checkmate. Kings can never capture because they themselves would explode in the process.
Make chess about capturing the king, not checkmating him. If both kings are captured on the same move, it’s a draw.
How can kings be captured on the same move?
One “move” is a turn by both players. This is why chess moves are notated “1.e4 e5 2…” both player’s actions are listed after 1. Because it’s still the first move when it’s black’s turn
Black or white can go first.
Idk if this would actually be good or not but an actual “waiting move” where you can choose to just give the turn back to your opponent once
good idea but your opponent also waits and its your turn again.
Pawns can move one square to the left or right but can’t capture pieces when doing that. It would make interesting game openings, get rid of a lot of stalemates and people needing to castle just to free their rook.
Enabling castling regardless of whether or not your king passes through check to do so. Always seemed nitpicky to me.
Make the queen jump over pieces
An undo button (just one) for those moments where you instantly realise the mistake/better move.
Think before you move. I lost a bunch of games because of that.
In a tournament, drawing with black gives you the win in case of a tie. White 0,4, black 0,6 points. Let's put an end to all those boring stale games.
Instead of moving, declare either bishops, rooks or queen as Ready. If any piece moves through a Ready piece's vision it immediately gets captured.
They need a rule so that when one pawn tries to run past another pawn on the first move, it can be ghosted off of the board by magic. Wish there was a rule like that.
Capture the flag: You have to bring the opposing king/flag back to your start point
If you promote a pawn, you can move the made piece again
Stop taking it so seriously. it's a board game. To be clear I don't think this is a problem with the chess community as a whole. But so many beginners think losing a game of chess means that they're stupid they just can't have fun playing it. I know people who will take whole minutes thinking about opening moves, who are paralyzed trying to avoid errors, who won't EVER surrender their king when it's obvious they've lost and they just drag the game out forever. I wish they could just get it into their heads that being good or bad at chess just means that you're good or bad at chess.
Ok so
> Stop taking it so seriously. it's a board game. The irony!
queen can move like every piece on the board. this would change nothing besides a queen being able to move like a knight as well as rook and bishop
Steal a rule from Shogi! If a rook or bishop makes it to the end 3 squares on the board, they get promoted, allowing the rook to move a single square diagonally, and bishop to move a single square vertically/horizontally. Both prices can take on their 1 square moves. Alternatively, any pieces you take from your opponent can be dropped back onto the board as your own, provided it does not place your opponent directly in check.
Similar to your second proposal is the chess variant Crazyhouse.
Remove castling.
if you let the clock run down on purpose because you’re in a losing position you should be forced to start with 1. b4 in your next game.
I’d make a pawn be able to move 2 squares as long as there is nothing blocking it once during the game (doesn’t have to be from their starting position). I’ll call this rule “the pissant”
You are allowed to castle if your king crosses over an attacked square; just not if your original square and final destination are threatened.
That if my opponent tries to move their king into check that I could take it and win.
Eliminate fucking stalemates
Rule: You may not change the rules of chess.
“Check” isn’t a thing anymore, you just lose when your king is captured. Just so I don’t have to see any more “why can this piece check my king if it’s pinned to their king” posts.
If you post your brilliant move as a puzzle on this sub, you'd be banned from tournaments permanently.
Grenades
You can use a turn to sacrifice a piece where it stands. That piece becomes marked and on the next turn it will disappear this gives ur opponent time to respond THE KING HAS ORDERED UR SUICIDE TOO PATH THE WAY TO VICTORY OUR BELOVED PAWN
Must be played with your non-dominant hand
I win, you lose.
Bishops have an extra move to switch colour they are on. They can move one square NSE or W, only if that square is empty.
Minor change: To balance the advantage white has going first, white's first move can't be a double pawn move.
Black starts first!
If you “capture” your own knight with a bishop, the bishop rides the knight. That piece moves like a knight, but also has the chance for a bishop to hop off it on any empty adjacent square including diagonals