Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Yes, it is perfectly playable with the rule that you can't put your opponent into check. I prefer it with the original rule because of the mating combinations it provides, but that is just a matter of taste. As for stalemate=win, fine with me of course. The two-piece rule sounds more artificial, it could be an idea if it becomes clear that endgames are too difficult to win. <p>Some time ago, somebody pointed out to me that a pawn should be promoted by the owner's opponent, which makes sense. I would like to add this to the standard rules.

I play that the opponent is not allowed to force you to put yourself into check. Also, if you have no legal moves, or only 2 units left (1 king and 1 other), you also lose. This makes it faster

According to the rules, Moisés is absolutely right. I am now thinking that one might better solve that question and the more delicate one of castling through check in a radical way by prohibiting castling completely.

Alternatively, you could castle by pointing to two squares, and declaring you intend to make a move that will occupy both of them. Since the only way that could be done would be by castling, it could not be refused.

So, in this game, it's impossible to castle if the opponent doesn't want you to castle, right?