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!
Noted & will be in the attic for recall....all clear on this end.
(uri65 #202) There is no flaw in the new rules since 2014, I provided the link many times but the trolls prefer to ignore it.
****
I haven't been ignoring your link !....U keep saying that.
It's just that the rules haven't changed since July 1, 2005. The rules board sat down in Mallorca in October 2004 and argued it out.
Probably my strongest argument comes outta 3.10b. Don't you find it ridiculously contradictory that a piece move that doesn't capture nor promote is deemed legal one moment then is deemed forever illegal the next ?
Where does that happen anywhere else in a chess game ?
It's so conflicting that I'm about to shoot FIDE a nasty one requiring they do a clarification at their next sit....before I get testy (outta spite !) w/ the next TD I come across.
And in regards to 3.8b....
....‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square (uncastling: its original square IS g1 ! (white kingside castle)) two squares towards the rook (which rook ?....the one on a1 ?) on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed.
****
So it could end up like this on an uncastle ?....per 3.8b ?
Before the Uncastle....
After the Uncastle....
Where both my rooks now occupy f1 ?
(uri65 #202) There is no flaw in the new rules since 2014, I provided the link many times but the trolls prefer to ignore it.
****
I haven't been ignoring your link !....U keep saying that.
It's just that the rules haven't changed since July 1, 2005. The rules board sat down in Mallorca in October 2004 and argued it out.
Probably my strongest argument comes outta 3.10b. Don't you find it ridiculously contradictory that a piece move that doesn't capture nor promote is deemed legal one moment then is deemed forever illegal the next ?
Where does that happen anywhere else in a chess game ?
It's so conflicting that I'm about to shoot FIDE a nasty one requiring they do a clarification at their next sit....before I get testy (outta spite !) w/ the next TD I come across.
No I don't see anything contradictory in a fact that a piece move is legal one moment then is forever illegal. If you do it's just your problem.
Your next question - "Where does that happen anywhere else in a chess game ?" has zero relevance.
....and ur idiocy comes that u kept quoting 2014 castling when they hadn't changed from 2005 castling.
....get w/ it there buster.
As a part of Article 3 that addresses castling....
3.8 a. There are two different ways of moving the king, by: i. moving to any adjoining square not attacked by one or more of the opponent`s pieces. or ii. `castling`. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour on the same rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed. (1) The right for castling has been lost: a. if the king has already moved, or b. with a rook that has already moved (2) Castling is prevented temporarily a. 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. b. if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected. 3.9 The king is said to be `in check` if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent`s pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.
- 'castling' is described as a regular move...
- what you call 'uncastling' is simply not described as a regular move, that's all...
...as simple as that... :-)
No I don't see anything contradictory in a fact that a piece move is legal one moment then is forever illegal. If you do it's just your problem.
You don't ?....well, then why can all the other pieces go back to where they once were ?...and u don't find this a contradiction ?....u may wanna ask Old Mr. Webster what "to contradict" means.
Your next question - "Where does that happen anywhere else in a chess game ?" has zero relevance.
So. Your 1st comment has about as much relevance as this one....zero....so are we even now ?
YU_2:
Cannot agree with you more in that you can't castle again after you've already castled.
One little problem here....you're not castling again. Ur uncastling....big difference.
You just need to find the door sweetie!
....and ur idiocy comes that u kept quoting 2014 castling when they hadn't changed from 2005 castling.
....get w/ it there buster.
3.10 was added in 2014 rules.
And your idiocy comes from the fact that by "original square" you mean the square where the piece stands now. And this is idiocy because every move starts from the square where the piece stands now. Rules clearly mean the square of initial setup.
No I don't see anything contradictory in a fact that a piece move is legal one moment then is forever illegal. If you do it's just your problem.
Pou don't ?....well, then why can all the other pieces go back to where they once were ?...and u don't find this a contradiction ?....u may wanna ask Old Mr. Webster what "to contradict" means.
Merriam-Webster, definition of contradiction:
1 : act or an instance of contradicting
2 a : a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something
b : a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other <a round square is a contradiction in terms>
3 a : logical incongruity
b : a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another
Now show us how chess rules are contradicting according to this definition.
Okay. Let me ask everyone a very thought-provoking question.
Since you are perfectly in your legal right to always move a piece (not pawn) back from whence it once came (exception: capture & promotion), then why doesn't FIDE specifically address this odd "uncastling" abnormality in their law dialogue ?
Here's why. They either forgot to, assumed we're all way too smart to be trivially burdened, the circumstance hasn't presented itself in OTB play yet, or noone's brought it to their attention.
I find it all kinda endearing, don't you ?
He obviously didn't like the word idiocy. Oh well, the truth can hurt.
YU_2:
Cannot agree with you more in that you can't castle again after you've already castled.
One little problem here....you're not castling again. Ur uncastling....big difference.
What is your real problem? As you already said "'castling' is not 'uncastling'". Well, and 'uncastling' is nowhere described as a regular move. Castling is described.... that's all. Simple isn't it?
Because the rules don't indicate that's a possible move. There's no rule that says you can un-capture or un-promote a piece.
I think what you're really trying to do in this discussion is discuss ways to extend the game of chess to different areas. I've heard of a suggestion of moving pawns backwards as well as forwards.
I also think the game has a lot of life left in it.. maybe a couple decades. Fischer 960 and chess as it is should be played out until computers solve it.
Because the rules don't indicate that's a possible move. There's no rule that says you can un-capture or un-promote a piece
Oh yes there is !....look it up.
....and you can start w/ chess game dynamics and how piece count and type irreverse game play.
Not relevant here. So let's keep to task, okay ?
I mean ask yourself. Why are TD's so important & necessary ?....'cuz rules are walking a fine line betweeen intent & letter.
Okay. Let me ask everyone a very thought-provoking question.
Since you are perfectly in your legal right to always move a piece (not pawn) back from whence it once came (exception: capture & promotion), then why doesn't FIDE specifically address this odd "uncastling" abnormality in their law dialogue ?
You succeed to make logical errors even in the simplest statements: no you can't always move a piece back from whence it once came - for example you can't do it if the piece is pinned to a king or if the square whence it came from is occupied.
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.
....completely missing the point.