I think these clauses cover off the apparent hole you discovered:
3.10
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.
No....now you're having a meltdown. You're capsizing about how to break the rules of chess.
I was hoping we were past that....I guess not (deep breathe).
Mom: Do u wanna learn chess ?
6yo: Yay !
Mom: Okay. The rules are really ez. The horsey moves like an "L" and the Rook moves like this and the King moves like this.
6yo: Okay ! That's pretty ez....can we go backwards ?
Mom: Yes.
6yo: Oh good....cuz' if I made a mistake maybe I can try to fix it.
Mom: Right. Well, I hafta tell u something about a really weird rule about your tallest piece, your King. He's the only tall guy that can't go backwards....sometimes. And neither can your shortest pieces - ever.
6yo: Really ?....sometimes ?....the king ?....huh. Mom ?....I thought u said the rules were ez ?
This thread is gonna go down in chess.com history.
FIDE is on the edge of their seat, reading the thread and wondering if this needs sent to subcommittee, vote and a formal rewrite of the rules.
its exciting!
You dedicated a thread to this? How amusing! I was wondering where you had disappeared to.
P2P....You know me. I would never advocate for FIDE to change the rules. 'Cuz that would be futile but not 'cuz I wouldn't want it as an option. I would luv 2b able to uncastle !
I just want FIDE to make it abundantly clear that one cannot uncastle & that this is truly odd & inordinate & a breaker of the common standard. IOW's, if I'm asking why can't I ?....then others are too.
I want no question left here....not only in letter but, more importantly, also in intent. Otherwise, I guarantee you, I'm gonna uncastle - just to do it & cause a 2do w/ the nearest TD within arms length.
....and then we're gonna have a go.
You dedicated a thread to this? How amusing! I was wondering where you had disappeared to.
Sorry Twippy. I'm currently preoccupied w/ the Law of the Chessland. And I'm in beetch-fighting mood for personal reasons I can't really divulge.
The rules state pieces can move to squares. FIDE does not state anywhere that pieces can move from squares. FIDE does show examples of where pieces can move to which include all directions.
Love this thread. There is probably a good analogy for un-castling in life. Like taking your seat belt off before impact or jumping into a fire to avoid getting hit by a truck.
WOW, Lola!
You've kept this drivel going for DAYS!
Girl, you are FABULOUS!
Love this thread. There is probably a good analogy for un-castling in life. Like taking your seat belt off before impact or jumping into a fire to avoid getting hit by a truck.
Well, if a wave of kingside white pawns is about to eat you alive in the Bermuda Triangle (h5-e8-h8-h5) then you betcher bare ____ you'd wanna uncastle outta trouble !
Why did you start this thread if you clearly know the answer JonWB81.
The rules state pieces can move to squares. FIDE does not state anywhere that pieces can move from squares. FIDE does show examples of where pieces can move to which include all directions.
Woah howd dis hapeen?
euankmcdougall, I did not start this thread. The honor goes to The_Ghostess_Lola.
However, it can get confusing when I have seen the original post as the first post and the original post as the last post on different threads.
Tbh i see where u are coming from. Castling is considered a SINGLE move. It's even denoted in the official score sheets as a single move 0-0. So there COULD be an option to uncastle, tbh i can see it being helpful in SOME situations, provided after uncastling the king reserves the right to catsle once more. I think there are 3 things mentioned.
1. Only a pawn is something which cannot go back
2. All moves can be undone except pawn moves.
3. Castling is classified as a single move.
However, keep in mind that there is also a rule that the king may only move 2 squuares ONCE in a game, when he castles. So uncastling would violate that rule.
As per your question, i think the historical sense of that is that after u construct a castle, u cannot really "undo" it. But that in itself is not a very bright answer as the king should always have the option to run away from his castle if it's under attack. Like in chess, if u feel that opponents pawns are storming in your castle position, u might want to consider uncastling if the rook / king has not moved.
Simply put, when you uncastle, ur eradicating the castle move - but not from record. IOW's, uncastling is not castling again. It's just simply uncastling. It just happens to be equal + opp.
If I had my way, I would say u cannot recastle. Thus upholding Article 3.8a.
(#236) Because the rules don't indicate that's a possible move.
Okay then. I want someone to show me where it says that I cannot take a piece/pieces & move them back to where they once were (ex: pawns).
Now do you see all the contradiction w/out explanation ?
3.10b A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9