day 2.
face it chess community. had the modern game developed a tad differently their would be uncastling.
and, shockingly, it would probably still have been popular.
But it didn't happen so it's just a speculation. It could also be that with uncastle the game would be dumber.
yep., day 2.
really?
you all call her a troll then double down on the insults. its .... hypocritical.
and ... I'm not saying your exactly wrong about the variant thing- but SO much has been said; its simply rude to ignore the fact that lola was not advocating "changing the rules" she simply sees a flaw in the way FIDE writes them up..
#devilsadvocate
yep., day 2.
really?
you all call her a troll then double down on the insults. its .... hypocritical.
and ... I'm not saying your exactly wrong about the variant thing- but SO much has been said; its simply rude to ignore the fact that lola was not advocating "changing the rules" she simply sees a flaw in the way FIDE writes them up..
#devilsadvocate
There is no flaw in the new rules since 2014, I provided the link many times but the trolls prefer to ignore it.
Well, you're the one w/ a knight for an avatar. Are you actually a queen ?
No .. that horse is clearly male and wild and has never been confused about its orientation!
I really like the idea of unplaying some complete games.
And uneating some food.
Never done that though .. and will not.
Not read the entire thread, but castling is a maneuver specifically allowed in the rules under certain conditions. There is no provision for "uncastling" just like there is no provision to move pawns backwards.
Out to cnj513:
Are you thoroughly enjoying all the pageantry ?
"3.8 a. There are two different ways of moving the king..."
Uncastling would be a 3rd way of moving the king. If you claim it's just a variation on castling then you run into the problem that the king can only jump two squares on it's very first move. You can't uncastle because the king's already moved.
You couldn't be firther from correct. The king moves the same way....a (2) square jump. So, satisfies the 2nd way of moving w/out a 3rd way needed.
You see ?....your problem is that you're directionally challenged. The king can move (1) way 0-0 or the other 0-0-0 - depending if you're black or white. Specific direction to "create a 3rd way" is something you're not defining - and can't could the way 3.8a is written.
Specific direction to create a 3rd way is undefined.
....and you know it.
It's literal vs. intent you beauzeau.
Now. Go see your physician for a cephalanalectomy !
This thread is getting a bit surreal!
It's 'cuz my argument has merit....that's why.
Noted....& rejected as blatantly false....for like the 100th time.
You move your king when you castle, therefore you can't castle again or "uncastle".
Assertion without supporting evidence....useless.
I want to see where in the rules it says you can't masturbate during a game...
castling is a commitment. think of the children ...
Poor, deprived little rooks...
Hey, I didn't make up the rule that a scardeekat king hides shivering like a chihuahua behind his sacrificial foot soldiers. Foot soldiers with unreal aspirations to move up in rank - should they sprint past enemy lines dodging fatal fire.
Then voluntarily corners himself behind his own Rook basically saying "You hafta kill him first before you get to me".
Well, enjoy your turkey leg....you worthless fata$$....
....
Pawns promote to qrnb didn't they have to add of the same color because of someone changing to opponents piece once? I read that someone argued that a pawn promoted to rook on the last rank was a rook never moved so it was legal to castle.loop holes are usually ridiculous aggravatons aren't they.
They say that this was kind of a humorous thing Tim Krabbe put together years ago where the pawn promotes to Rook on e8, the King moves (2) squares up to e3 and swings the Rook over to e2. Voila !
....or something like that.
3.8.b clearly says that castle right is lost once the king has moved.So castling itself cancels any other castling.
It is quite obviously a one time move only.
****
Wrong if you mean that castling itself cancels an uncastle.
Right if you agree that FIDE rules remain unclear.
And with all due respect to Dark Army, his write-up has holes within holes.
But his last sentence is interesting....
#196 is the closest comment to support so far. And that makes me feel kinda good.