Witch Explained

"Note: Even though pieces can move through transparent pieces, it does not enable pieces to move to the same square as a transparent piece without making a capture."

--> yes that would be an improvement

I'm a little late in this discussion, but it appears that evert's question is still open. (Is it allowed to castle and capture at the same time)? Evert's diagram (#14) shows the situation clearly.

I think in FIDE chess, castling and capturing at the same time is never possible because to castle, there must be no pieces (of either color) standing between the king and the rook.

Our situation is different, because we allow transparent pieces to stand between the king and the rook when castling.

If the transparent pieces are enemy pieces, then I think they can be captured while castling. Just like any other move in chess can result in a capture, I don't see any reason to exclude it for castling.

It would only be dis-allowed if we make a special rule, but I don't see a reason for doing that.

(That's my interpretation. Do others agree?)

I think this rule is superfluous (not needed) because we never allow two pieces to stand on the same square. I think keeping it here in this discussion is good, but I personally don't see that it's needed in the leading rule-set. (my opinion).

Is it possible for a pawn to capture by moving forward if the piece in front is transparent?

From FIDE rules:

3.7.1 The pawn may move forward to the square immediately in front of it on the same file, provided that this square is unoccupied

3.1.1 If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.

Nowhere is it stated that a pawn may not capture by moving forward in the rules. It's pretty much the same restriction as castling. In castling, all squares between the king and rook must be unoccupied. With a pawn moving forward, the square in front may not be occupied.

I thought it was clear that transparency should only enable moves to move through pieces if they do not end up on the same square as the transparent piece. I don't get why castling should be an exception to that rule.

I agree with Martins latest example. We might add this:

If your own piece has a certain move in the movement abilities but not in the capture abilities (e.g. a pawn moving forward, or a King castling), then it can also not capture a transparent enemy piece with that move.

Isn't chess difficult enough already without extra crazy pieces?

Edit - I found the answer to my own question, as I completely disregarded that the Witch's other power is sliding.

I guess there's a distinction between "jumping" and "moving through a transparent piece".

How much would the witch be worth on 10x8?

All it does is make pieces transparent.

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/value-of-the-witch

Yeah the simple answer to "how much is the witch worth" is "it depends". Take the link and read through the discussion.

Careful about devaluing her too quickly, now. Causing transparency leaks available pathways for you and not for your enemy pieces. You could threaten them without reciprocation. That has got to be worth sum' sum'.

what even is the point for that peices existence

Quite a lot, actually.

It opens up one or many new lines of attack against your enemy when the same cannot be reciprocated. 

'Not many chess pieces can say that,' if I could put it that way.