yeehaaaa! i like the way you think power!
Why Can't I Uncastle a Castle ?
Sort:
Jan 12, 2017
0
#363
Dark_Army wrote:
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Article 3
The Moves of the Pieces
3.8 a. 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...........
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??
100% wrongo Charlie Army.
The "original" square, if I knew nothing of chest (what alotta ppl call it who've never played), would mean where my K was at hte moment of decision. It should read "initial board setup" or "commencing game play" or something like that.
Okay. Argument (2).
Say I'm white and I castle 0-0. Per the way 3.8a is written, if I Uncastled, I would step my King (2) squares from g1 to e1 and swing my QUEEN'S Rook over to f1....for what could conceivably be called a "0-0-0-0".
Now remember, I've never played chest before so I hafta rely on the letter of the law - as literal. Intent means nothing 'cuz I'm by myself & I just bought 1a those red fold-in-half boards (black outlined) that comes as a checker set combo from back in the mid-1900's.
I would then say, "hey, wait a sec", in that my Queen Rook (I'd be calling them castles BTW 'cuz I've never played before) would overcede my King Rook 'cuz both of them now occupy f1.
So I would say. Oh !....no problem. To castle 0-0-0-0 I just need to clear my King Rook from the 1st rank. You know, so nothing but air is between my K + QR when I do a 0-0-0-0.
Have I broken any FIDE Rules here ?....NOPE !
Did I stay w/in the rules of always having the option of moving pieces back from whence they once were....YEP !
we need to stop letting a few individuals control how we play chess
it is time for us chess players to rise up and take over FIDE and create this rule for un-castling. why should we be forced to play a game that we don't like the rules. it is a like a form of slavery that fide is bestowing on us.
this guy has a smirk on his face because he knows what i am talking about. he must be a conspirator
Jan 12, 2017
0
#365
Snookslayer wrote:
Decastling IS ALREADY LEGAL, but it's same the rule as castling - once that rook or king has moved, the option is over.
I just blew my own mind.
Absolutely hilarious !....wasn't that ahhhsum ?....it's the funnest part a having a brain !
Jan 12, 2017
0
#366
For you P2P....
....(triggered from #431)
If ur gonna play chest wth me ?....then I expect u to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfgnc6Ey0q0
Jan 12, 2017
0
#367
we need to stop letting a few individuals control how we play chess
it is time for us chess players to rise up and take over FIDE and create this rule for un-castling. why should we be forced to play a game that we don't like the rules. it is a like a form of slavery that fide is bestowing on us.
....YAY !!....go blue jar girl....go !!
Jan 12, 2017
0
#368
ironbasicb wrote:
there's no such word as de-castling or uncastling either to describe this, to reverse one's castling is appropriate
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
DavidHHH wrote:
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
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.
I went to the attic but did not find you there, only some other ghosts .. disappointed. I hope I can at least play against you online. Do you play bullet games?
Jan 12, 2017
0
#370
I'm not 'following' this thread but I have noticed several name changes. Strange Lola.
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
we need to stop letting a few individuals control how we play chess
it is time for us chess players to rise up and take over FIDE and create this rule for un-castling. why should we be forced to play a game that we don't like the rules. it is a like a form of slavery that fide is bestowing on us.
....YAY !!....go blue jar girl....go !!
I really like the sense of humor in your posting(s) and am surprised to see how seriously so many people take the matter. Personally, on a real board game, I would not mind to play against you with as many castling and uncastling moves as you wish. Can also go further and invent any form of mutated chess just for fun. But then I would also invent some new name for that game, so the rest of community here can enjoy playing Chess on forever.
Jan 12, 2017
0
#372
Yes. But I usually play w/ a donut. Not a solid green ball. 3/0 & 5/0 games . Maybe see you then....L
You're a lawyer "right"? This is sophistry and the reason why nobody likes you, just kidding, but Aristotle did say that no life could be considered a success spent inside a court room.
Jan 12, 2017
0
#374
The defence attorney is on the left....client on right....
....
Jan 12, 2017
0
#375
chessking1976 wrote:
I'm not 'following' this thread but I have noticed several name changes. Strange Lola.
Well, howabout if u suggest the title name for 2morrow ?........
Jan 12, 2017
0
#376
(#384) If you can show me a point in 3.1-3.9 where uncastling is mentioned then please do so
****
Not the point. The point is all pieces (not pawns now) thruout the game have the right to move back from whence they came (ex: capture & promomorph). This in itself DOES NOT IN ANY WAY violate FIDE Rules. FIDE is not, tho' should be, clear regarding this very odd & eccentric "one-off castle" move in that this is the one & only case where a player cannot move back from whence it once came. Let's not only get fuzzy - let's get grey !
This assumption to reverse castle rests firmly with my assertion. It is up to the rulebook to crystal clarify why the player cannot reverse a castle move as I have explicitly demonstrated a condition in #436 where confuzion could easily be caused per the letter of the law.
IOW's, the ball is in the letter upholder's court. Not mine. And 3.10 is a blanket escape to aid decision-making for TD's. Yes, it does just that. But is it correct ?
I feel there's just too much interpretation left open for the player. Therefore, I have a case to reverse my castle move....AT WILL.
Jan 12, 2017
0
#377
At this point, I'm considering beating the mods to it and shutting down this thought-provoking thread. I've lost some sleep over it the last (2) nights and I even wiped my eyes while driving over to a friend's bungalow late yesterday.
So IDK....yet.
I second that emotion.
frankly, lola. you've been too good of a poster to put up with this. but these boys just can't seem to let it be. gosh help us, if someone on the Internet is WRONG.
jengaias wrote:
Lola tries to understand why she must lose a game because she castled on the wrong side of the board.
She wants to castle and once her opponent launches the attack, uncastle and castle on the other side.
Let's be honest , who wouldn't like that?
What?
It isn't chess?
Who cares?
Now that would have been a perfectly fine thread:
OP sample:
"Wouldn't it be cool if you could castle kingside, then uncastle and recastle queenside?"
...but that's not how Lola posts threads, because it doesn't garner enough attention. It has to be spiced up with dubious rules-lawyering and imperative challenges to the chess "establishment".
Lola is not crazy, just pedantic about her pet ideas (which are hardly mindblowing, let's be honest)...so, painting naysayers as boring by comparison is that a kind of generalized straw-manning.
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Nice Idea xD