There is also a Bishop and Rook, why should the Q move like those?
Castling Vertically? Real Rule? If so, how did/does it work?
Sort:
EndgameStudy wrote:
Speedybulletchess wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:
Speedybulletchess wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:
Castling states that the king and rook could not have moved, and the king can;t castle out of or through check. A promoted rook hasn't moved, so why can;t u castle with it?
The same reason a queen can't move like a knight? Because that's just not the way it is.
That is not a valid analogy. The queen isn't defined to move like a knight. I'm asking why that's not the way it is. It's perfectly valid castling.
Well, a rook that is has been promoted is by definition not allowed to be used to castle. So, I used a completely sound analogy.
And plus, since when did castling with six squares between the rook and king become a thing?
How is a promoted rook defined not to be allowed to castle with? What rule says that. Castling queen side or kingside is with differing # of squares in between, so that's actually irrelevant.
If that's your logic, I give up. 
For that matter, there is a K also, so no moving like that either.
The Queen can move in an s pattern anywhere on the board and can magically move through other pieces to get where they want.
Rsava wrote:
For that matter, there is a K also, so no moving like that either.
The Queen can move in an s pattern anywhere on the board and can magically move through other pieces to get where they want.
Yes! I just figured that out. No one can beat me now!
Rsava wrote:
There is also a Bishop and Rook, why should the Q move like those?
Because there's a piece for every type of movement, including EVERY MOVEMENT COMBINED, but the knight isn't included in that. Rook for horizontal and vertical, bishop for diagonal, king for 1 square, queen for unlimited squares, and knight for L pattern.
For variants? Yes, I'd think it'd be interesting, for normal chess, I wouldn't make it a rule.
Well the Arch Chancellor is a queen/knight combo.
Rsava wrote:
There is also a Bishop and Rook, why should the Q move like those?
Ikr!
Hey, the pawn moves foward and captures diagonal. The rule should be consistent. The rook should capture like the bishop and vice versa. the queen should capture like the knight and vice versa.
They're just trying to troll you endgame, even though I'm quite sure you weren't trolling and I k ow I wasn't. Don't bite them, they are just trying to annoy you.
EndgameStudy wrote:
Rsava wrote:
There is also a Bishop and Rook, why should the Q move like those?
Because there's a piece for every type of movement, including EVERY MOVEMENT COMBINED, but the knight isn't included in that. Rook for horizontal and vertical, bishop for diagonal, king for 1 square, queen for unlimited squares, and knight for L pattern.
Since a queen has unlimited movement, it should be able to move like a knight!
Nah, cause that's redundant. U want a piece that can move in all linear directions, and a piece that can only move in non-linear directions.
EndgameStudy wrote:
Nah, cause that's redundant. U want a piece that can move in all linear directions, and a piece that can only move in non-linear directions.
You make zero sense and I am now positive you are trolling.
Because a queen shouldn't have a knight's power. The knight is a unique piece that has a power no other piece should have. Makes perfect sense
Rsava wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:
Nah, cause that's redundant. U want a piece that can move in all linear directions, and a piece that can only move in non-linear directions.
You make zero sense and I am now positive you are trolling.
Zero is an overstatement.
Decades ago, I once saw the claim that the official rules of chess (unintentionally) allowed castling on a file. Someone even proposed a symbol for it (O-O-O-O). Since then, there has been much rule revision, so I would assume that this loophole, if it ever really existed, has been closed.
Even if this were a rule how often would it be invoked? Once every 10 bajillion games? You need to not move your king, get your e-pawn all the way to the other side of the board without capturing anything, not have anything else on the e-file, not have any enemy piece with sight on any other e-file square... How often does this happen in a serious game, even if you're trying for it?
easchner wrote:
Even if this were a rule how often would it be invoked? Once every 10 bajillion games? You need to not move your king, get your e-pawn all the way to the other side of the board without capturing anything, not have anything else on the e-file, not have any enemy piece with sight on any other e-file square... How often does this happen in a serious game, even if you're trying for it?
That's about right. Not only all the conditions you mentioned, but also the need to promote to a rook, not a queen. I'll bet no one here (or anywhere) has ever seen even the opportunity. It's probably never happened except for a made up game or composed problem. I would guess in real life games it happens maybe once every 200 years, if that.
Guess what! There's a new rule Chess.com is implementing! Now a queen can move like a knight!
Why should a queen move like a knight when there are already knights in the start of the game???