Like everything else, the rules of chess have evolved. And I particularly like the fact that a pawn can become a Queen (once, and not long before my time, she was a relatively weak piece). Indeed; why should the sub-strata of society not have the opportunity to dream, perchance to achieve the stifling, plot-driven mayhem of life at the summit? (Of course, a real man would choose to cash in his advanced pawn for a Knight... that hop-about, close-quarter, look-behind-you, outpost-seeking rogue of the Board. But that is another story.)
Now, had I been in charge of the Rules of the Game, I would have decreed that Bishops be in the front Rank, still allowed to go side-wise, on the bias (well, their sexual habits would demand it, n'est pas?) but most easily gunned down (even by that bit o'biscuit that dropped upon the board.) An early end to them and good riddance. To the Church, I say fook.
I might also have invented a larger Board and more pieces: Earls, for a start. Yes. Earls would have the combined power of Queens and Knights (my God, Essex would have killed for that. Me too, for that matter.)
Hmmm... I see where this going. Yes, I can spell sedition.