What? Really? I quickly checked the date, and no: it's not April 1st. Nor was the article written then. The story seems to have originated in The New York Post -which as far as I can tell is a tabloidy newspaper- and contains no direct quotes. On the other hand its author, Andy Soltis, is hardly a disreputable figure.
Personally, I think this is a bad idea, because the glamour of the Queen sacrifice would become impossible, unless you allowed your Queen to become mated, so to speak. But this got me thinking about changing the rules, and I've come up with an alternative that I would like to see: that knights, like pawns, can't move backwards. Isn't that how they played in the 19th century anyhow?