Why Can't I Uncastle a Castle ?

I'm guessing that the rules say nothing about having to wear clothes while playing chess, should this therefore be prohibited?

If you can show me a point in 3.1-3.9 where uncastling is mentioned then please do so

I remember some controversy in the chess magazine, must be a few years ago by now about how hats are now band by any participant of certain chess tournaments.  I do believe it was due to a recent spate of grand masters turning up to tournaments with quite ridiculous headgear.  This annoyed my friend no end as he has lost most of his hair and tends to wear a hat because let's face it chess venues can be rather cold at certain times.  Anyway, there was a stipulation about how you could wear headgear for religious reasons so I reacall my friend writing to chess magazine how he had formed a new religion called baldyism thus allowing him to continue his hat wearing practice.

I'm not sure if this is a fact or factoid but I have also heard that low cut tops are also band for female competitors.

P2P ?....I'll be in Montreal in April.

Well you know they can be awfully distracting...  as I say I'm not sure if that is a fact or factoid.

Hold on

Can't you only castle if you haven't moved either piece? Because castling counts as a move... One would assume the rules are symmetrical for this hypothetically symmetrical move.

 K+R is not a "Piece". The King can manually move back to his original square by legal king moves as defined. The rook, also, can do the same thing. Pawns can't move back to their original positions because it is not possible given their movement constraints. Any other piece can do so given the move constraints posed upon them by the rules in 3.1-3.9. Nowhere in those rules does it state that the king can "UNcastle"

"There are two different ways of moving the king: by moving to any adjoining square not attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces or by ‘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 two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed."

please point me to where it says "decastle" in this statement. The king has 2 possible moves, moving one square in any direction, or castling, which requires the king to be on it's "original square". de-castling is forbidden as in rule 3.10 b which states that any move not mentioned by 3.1-3.9 is forbidden, including de-castling

Ladies and gentlemen, may we end the arguments here? I've scrolled through every arguments and answers and is now sounding off like..."why did the chicken cross the street?"...

@power2....you have a good vision....and imagination!

What you are proposing is a THIRD way of moving the king. This is illegal, because the rule states there are only two ways to move the king.

Can you please be quiet now??

holy crap. I don't feel like reading through the hundreds of posts of bs that have made their way onto this thread. so just in case no one has given The_Ghostess_Lola the simple and real answer as to why you cannot make a move  called "uncastle", I will now risk repeating what has already been said.

There are 2 reasons you cannot uncastle, and one way you can when you need to.

reason 1: there is no move called uncastle. you said it yourself it isn't a move allowed to you by the rules, but just to clear up the ambiguity about a pawn being the only piece unable to return to its original position...

Reason 2: You are not allowed to move 2 pieces in one turn. Castling is the only exception to this, period. the rules say so. Therefore, by "uncastling" in 1 turn without another written exception you are breaking the rules. and all other pieces that are allowed to return to their original positions also have to do so through some series of legal moves.

now the good news for those times when you don't want your king in the corner anymore and/or you want your rook back to the a or h ranks. in just 2 moves you can get your pieces into a roughly "uncastled" position.

so to recap, uncastling isn't a thing BECAUSE it isn't in the rules, and anything not in the rules is basically not allowed, like say dropping in pieces that you've captured to use as your own. but you can "uncastle" if you use multiple legal moves to do it. got it? can we please lock this thread now? can the hundreds of off topic or combative and non-helpful comments stop?

the point of the original post is that they don't believe current rules disallow it. my point is that that isn't how the current rules work, you manage to miss both points, attempt to insult me, and exemplify why this thread needs locked all in one post. Just so you know, I'm not bothered at all by what you said. Just responding on the off chance you meant what you said and aren't just trying to troll, which your poor grammar suggests could be true. Have a nice day and please try to pass on the constructive attitude which will make the site and sport a better place.

un castle is not in the rules

Yes that's true and also why this thread is silly. The current rules do not allow for uncastling.

There are only two ways in which you may move the king.

1. You can move it to any adjacent square

2. You can move it from it's original square two squares towards the rook in the process of castling.

These are not the rules for castling. These are the rules for how you are allowed to move your king.

What Lola doesn't understand, it that he's proposing a THIRD way of moving the king where it's being removed from it's castled square back on it's original square.

this is exactly the point on which i was elaborating with my first response. Power_2_the_people saw fit to say that I was thinking too narrowly and to suggest I think I'm above others. I'm simply pointing out that castling is the ONLY move where it allows 2 pieces to change position in 1 turn. I reasoned it out in several ways to avoid ambiguity, and along with your you said that should be the end all on the question. now when are mods going to lock this now pointless thread?

lola doesn't suggest an innovation or rule change they suggest that the current rules do not prevent "de-castling" but the rules do, as previously stated. as far as rule changes or innovations go, feel free to work them into your own games where u can, try them out see how you like them, maybe even start a variant version of chess based off of it (plenty of those exist). But unless it is needed to improve the balance or competition of chess, it will not become a part of the official rules. This is my last post on this topic which has by far outlived it's purpose.

you can do that, it will take you a lot of moves if you know what i mean...

wow, just wow...