Rule changes I'd like to see

[sje]

Some rule changes I'd like to see:

1) The fifty move rule is adjusted for any position in a class known to have a maximal mating distance. The value for a class is four thirds of the maximal distance for that class, rounded up.

2) The fifty move rule is adjusted to have the hundred ply counter reset when a change in castling rights occurs.

3) A fifty move draw claim is required, not optional.

4) The threefold rule is changed so that a position is immediately drawn upon the first repetition of a position, not the second.

5) A repetition draw claim is required and not optional.

6) An insufficient mating material draw claim is required and not optional.

7) A player may resign only if it's his/her/its turn to move; alternatively, a player resigning out of turn is considered not to have made his/her/its last move.

8) The double forfeit rule is dropped. Related: a game result must be one of "1/2-1/2", "1-0", "0-1", or "*" (unknown).

9) Any game found to have an invalid move, an invalid starting position, or some other legality screw-up is considered null, void, and not played.

10) The provision allowing an insufficient mating draw claim by a player out of time is deleted.

[hgm]

Some rule changes I'd like to see:

1) The fifty move rule is adjusted for any position in a class known to have a maximal mating distance. The value for a class is four thirds of the maximal distance for that class, rounded up.

2) The fifty move rule is adjusted to have the hundred ply counter reset when a change in castling rights occurs.

Why? Surely castling is not progress towards winning the game. Pushing Pawns towards promotion, and capturing pieces is.

3) A fifty move draw claim is required, not optional.

And if they don't make a required claim, then what? Forfeit? If no forfeit, then why should they comply? If you want games to end after 50 reversible moves, you should just declare such a game ended, just as with insufficient mating material. Then it does not matter what people claim or not, and you get rid of a lot of problems that way.

4) The threefold rule is changed so that a position is immediately drawn upon the first repetition of a position, not the second.

And not allow for mistakes? Isn't this a bit out of character with your proposal (1)? Why 4/3 there, and not exactly the required number of moves?

5) A repetition draw claim is required and not optional.

6) An insufficient mating material draw claim is required and not optional.

But an insufficient-mating-material claim is not optional under current rules. Neither can it be required, because by definition there is never a position in the game where it you could make that claim. Because then the game has already ended. Do you want to alter that rule too, to enable players to make mistakes in claiming?

7) A player may resign only if it's his/her/its turn to move; alternatively, a player resigning out of turn is considered not to have made his/her/its last move.

Why not the opposite: if he resigns out of turn, it counts as if he did it after the opponent's move? Or perhaps ignore it altogether? The past cannot be undone in practice. In engine-engine play under WinBoard, it often cause problems when engines resign after their move (as they usually do), as the opponent will already have started the search for its reply move. And not all engines allow the search to be interrupted. And in MAtch mode, the move then runs into the next game, often leading to forfeits. None of that is solved by considering the previous move unplayed.

8) The double forfeit rule is dropped. Related: a game result must be one of "1/2-1/2", "1-0", "0-1", or "*" (unknown).

9) Any game found to have an invalid move, an invalid starting position, or some other legality screw-up is considered null, void, and not played.

10) The provision allowing an insufficient mating draw claim by a player out of time is deleted.

Again, under current rules no such claim is possible.

[Ovyron]

4) The threefold rule is changed so that a position is immediately drawn upon the first repetition of a position, not the second.

I've seen engines that correctly know that first repetition is not draw, and may go to one and gain more time with incremental clocks (and a hash with more important entries), then they use the extra time to choose a better move they couldn't have found the first time around. In these cases calling it a draw on the first repetition makes no sense.

[mathmoi]

7) A player may resign only if it's his/her/its turn to move; alternatively, a player resigning out of turn is considered not to have made his/her/its last move.

What's the penalty if the player ignore the rule and resign while it's his opponent turn? He automatically loses the game?

[Aleks Peshkov]

IMO it is not modest to require changing rules of the game with several hundreds years history and traditions.

[bob]

The last case is handled by FIDE rules and there _is_ a rule to address it. If my flag falls, but you don't have enough material to force checkmate, even if I try to help you mate me, then the game is a draw, I don't lose.

[sje]

IMO it is not modest to require changing rules of the game with several hundreds years history and traditions.

You may be correct.

However, if some people had never considered changing game rules, we would not have chess today. Instead, we would have Shatranj. Or the predecessor to Shatranj. Or something even earlier that's even less interesting.