Thank you, Fauquinelle for standing up for me. Thus far, most of the response to my posts has been negative.
He's hardly qualified to suggest a chess variant, since he continually fails to spot his own errors in the process.
I correct my errors when they are pointed out to me. Anyone who is inventing something new is bound to make at least some mistakes along the way. They just need to correct them as they find them (or others find them for them,) until they come out with a finished product.
And he's certainly not qualified to suggest alterations to the real game.
Anyone who understands the basic rules of chess is qualified to suggest alterations to the game. However, they would not likely be accepted unless they were both logicalandnot major alterations. (Of coarse the stalemating rules are the only things that I think should be reconsidered in the regular game.) Even still, it would take quite a while to change them. Consider that it took about 200 years for England to change their ridiculous rule that stalemate counted as a loss to the one administering it! The new stalemate rules are much better, but could still use some improvement.
