Don't get many slow trollers here. I don't mean the 1 year break either. Originally you made only 2 comments then left it alone.
Castling Rules
Sort:
owltuna wrote:
Ok, one last try. True, a pawn cannot move diagonally-forward unless the square is occupied by an enemy piece. However, you must realize that this means the pawn threatens to capture on those two squares, meaning that the pawn is attacking those squares, even if there is not presently any enemy piece on that square.
FIDE rule of castling, 3.8 b(2)[a]: Castling is prevented temporarily if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces.
Fair enough - if we are to accept that the squares diagonally in front of the pawn are attacked by it, even though unoccupied. As for the person above who inplies that I'm guilty of trolling, I never had any such intention.
RG1951 wrote:
owltuna wrote:
Ok, one last try. True, a pawn cannot move diagonally-forward unless the square is occupied by an enemy piece. However, you must realize that this means the pawn threatens to capture on those two squares, meaning that the pawn is attacking those squares, even if there is not presently any enemy piece on that square.
FIDE rule of castling, 3.8 b(2)[a]: Castling is prevented temporarily if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces.
Fair enough - if we are to accept that the squares diagonally in front of the pawn are attacked by it, even though unoccupied. As for the person above who inplies that I'm guilty of trolling, I never had any such intention.
Yes, this is what I said, and even extended it to en passant which you ignored. Maybe you're not sure how en passant works? Yeah it's french, but it's a real rule ;)
As for the trolling, when people ignore rational posts I assume they're trolling. Ok, so you'd rather be thought of as willfully ignorant? Either way it's not very flattering.
shell_knight wrote:
RG1951 wrote:
owltuna wrote:
Ok, one last try. True, a pawn cannot move diagonally-forward unless the square is occupied by an enemy piece. However, you must realize that this means the pawn threatens to capture on those two squares, meaning that the pawn is attacking those squares, even if there is not presently any enemy piece on that square.
FIDE rule of castling, 3.8 b(2)[a]: Castling is prevented temporarily if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces.
Fair enough - if we are to accept that the squares diagonally in front of the pawn are attacked by it, even though unoccupied. As for the person above who inplies that I'm guilty of trolling, I never had any such intention.
Yes, this is what I said, and even extended it to en passant which you ignored. Maybe you're not sure how en passant works? Yeah it's french, but it's a real rule ;)
As for the trolling, when people ignore rational posts I assume they're trolling. Ok, so you'd rather be thought of as willfully ignorant? Either way it's not very flattering.
At least I can spell - "willfully"? This is getting a bit out of hand isn't it? I have not ignored rational posts and I understand capturing en passant. I did say above that the views I had read were fair enough.
Well, stubborn or not, for me the OP demonstrates having a sensible and inquisitive mind by thinking about such an original question. But at the end is only a matter of realizing what squares are threatened. That's why white tries to build an ideal pawn center, for example: to control c5, d5, e5 and f5.
Pulpofeira wrote:
Well, stubborn or not, for me the OP demonstrates having a sensible and inquisitive mind by thinking about such an original question. But at the end is only a matter of realizing what squares are threatened. That's why white tries to build an ideal pawn center, for example: to control c5, d5, e5 and f5.
Sir,
I've seen your posts may times elsewhere. You are a breath of fresh air and your politeness and civility are welcome.
Robert kaynight sounds suspicious!
RG1951 wrote:
Fair enough - if we are to accept that the squares diagonally in front of the pawn are attacked by it, even though unoccupied. As for the person above who inplies that I'm guilty of trolling, I never had any such intention.
The pawn's power to attack or control a square diagonally in front of itself IS NOT DEPENDENT on that square being occupied by an opponent.
A pawn for example can assist in checkmate (or any attack) by protecting one of its own pieces that delivers the check.
A pawn can assist in checkmate (or any attack) by covering one or more of the opponent's king's flight squares.
It has been ably pointed out that in your original example, the square f1 (and d1) is being attacked by the pawn. Therefore castling is not allowed.
Good point. Now perhaps we can leave it.
Yup. But you have to admit that you are a slow learner (a little bit), but still argumentative.
I don't have to admit any such thing. The only post which satisfactorily addressed the point was #39 - the point being whether the pawn attacked empty squares or not. My initial suggestion was that it did not, but I am prepared to accept that it does. You say I'm argumentative. What does that make all the people who seem so desperate to get the last word, or cheap shot, in? I hope that is the end of it, but I fear not.
I wasn't being rude though. You addressed it well.
Maybe the OP should try checkers ?
Shouldn't that be "chequers"? Why does personal abuse always come into these threads?