Forums

castling should be banned, explanation inside

Sort:
A-Tail-Of-2-Kittehs
A-Tail-Of-2-Kittehs
Feb 17, 2016
0
#41

when the wimps took over chess they brought in the castling rule, to top it off they then didnt even allow the kings to tackle each other, a far cry from a king being chased into a corner by another like two kung fu fighters.

Dodger111
Dodger111
Feb 17, 2016
0
#42
batgirl wrote:
finn416 wrote:
batgirl wrote:

Perhaps there could be an option of choosing between standard castling and free-castling?

 What do you mean?

Free-castling was the style of castling employed by the Italians up until the latter part of the 19th century. The Russians also used free-castling but abandonned it slightly sooner.  It's a looser version of castling.  Consider the squares from the King to the Rook (including their own squares) as the unit. The Rook moves to any square in that unit, other than his own square, and the King can move to any square on the other side of the Rook.

Never heard of free castling so I looked it up. Don't know about the Russians, but it was indeed a regional variation used around Italy until the late 1800's.

Weird.

LeBellman
LeBellman
Feb 17, 2016
0
#43
Why don't we add a special square on each side where if you get a piece into it, you win? Kind of like a goal?
shine5
shine5
Feb 17, 2016
0
#44

LeBellman wrote:

Why don't we add a special square on each side where if you get a piece into it, you win? Kind of like a goal?

Nice suggestion, there should be danger squares too so that whenever your opponent moves his rook ,bishop or knight to that square you are forced to swallow that piece or resign.

Martin_Stahl
Martin_Stahl
Moderator
Feb 17, 2016
0
#45
LeBellman wrote:
Why don't we add a special square on each side where if you get a piece into it, you win? Kind of like a goal?

 

There are some variations like that. 

ArtificalHuman
ArtificalHuman
Closed: Inactive
Feb 17, 2016
0
#46

Castling makes the game more interesting. When you see your opponent castling you are telling this to yourself : "How the fck am i gonna get this king ?" The king is in his fortress made by pawns and the rook representing a tower. The attack in order to checkmate is way more beautiful. This can be an artistic vison of the chess game. 

Rodiath
Rodiath
Feb 17, 2016
0
#47

I have another suggestion! White always moving first leads to an imbalanced and unfair game!

You should instead make it so that each player decides on a move, and once both have decided the moves are made simultaneously. 

ArtificalHuman
ArtificalHuman
Closed: Inactive
Feb 17, 2016
0
#48

Games between engines always turn into a draw so there is no "imbalance".

xman720
xman720
Feb 17, 2016
0
#49
A-Tail-Of-2-Kittehs wrote:

when the wimps took over chess they brought in the castling rule, to top it off they then didnt even allow the kings to tackle each other, a far cry from a king being chased into a corner by another like two kung fu fighters.

To be fair, I do like the chinese chess version where if the kings are ever on an open file across from each other, the king who's turn it is to move leaps across the board and tackles the opposing king, instantly achieving victory.

It would be cool if chess was like that.

 

If that was a way for games to terminate, what should the symbol be for notation?

I think it should be:



BigKingBud
BigKingBud
Feb 17, 2016
0
#50

I vote we replace chess castling with white castling
 

morerayc
morerayc
Feb 20, 2016
0
#51

You can always modify the rules however you like provided you are in agreement with your opponent beforehand. If others find it appealing, they might pick it up...