Does Article 3 of the FIDE rules really contain this sentence?!
Uncastling loses the knight, but saves the game...
If you were on FIDE's ruleboard, how would u handle this one ?
Ms Ghostess; you application to 'uncastle' has been denied and is classified as an illegal move. An illegal moves shall render any relevant chess game containing said move invalid and inelgible for rating purposes. Our lawyers have determined that the official rules appropriately describe castling. You are welcome to make further inquiries/protest with the appropriate subcommittee.
most sincerely,
Mr. Pikup Andropov
Senior Associate Dewey, Cheetam, and Howe
Retainer de FIDE
"Gens Una Sumus"
Does Article 3 of the FIDE rules really contain this sentence?!
https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf
This is where I got it. So, I'm just copy-pasting.
Then maybe FIDE should clarify that not all piece "moves" are retractable.
Not the argument Icy. I see a hole in FIDE's rulebook. And it's okay if there is one. This is how rulebooks get improved. You know, amended for the better.
Quote #27, as it takes in the letter of FIDE law into account, is not violated in an Uncastle move. Therefore, the legal move of castling should have the right to retract....IOW's, to uncastle.
ghostess I think you're being frankly a little stubborn about Icy's point
which was well written.
"castling" is something of an exception as it is. and there's nothing in the rules that say every move Can be retracted. far from it.
is there a rule saying pawn cannot move backwards? or that the forward move can be retracted??
rules don't have to include EVERYTHING that can't happen. as that would make them cumbersome indeed.
Ppl are reacting on this thread to implied intent. And implied intent is not an option in chess law.
It is an option for a Tournament Director. And some of the time TD's are derelict of decision & duty.
Looks like there's no rule against moving pawns backwards, so pawns should be able to move backwards too.
Not true....not true at all.
FIDE explicitly states all legal moves of the pawn. Only 'cuz it has the most complicated of move rules. They are crystal clear about pawns. And I have no argument there.
The rules are pretty straight forward and absence of an idea, doesn't mean that it should be allowed.
The movements of the kings are pretty well defined in the rules. There is one exception to that rule and it is castling. Castling is an exception to the king movement rules and defined in the rules. Since the only alternative to moving one square at a time is castling, then the idea of un-castling is against the rules.
(#30) ghostess I think you're being frankly a little stubborn
....a little ?
Does Article 3 of the FIDE rules really contain this sentence?!
https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf
This is where I got it. So, I'm just copy-pasting.
This is the appropriate rules link, and I think that random looking sentence was due to copy/paste and the loss of the diagrams:
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article
this seems circular and repetitious.
if you feel FIDE hasn't described the rules well enough. feel free to write them.
it would be a great honor to further define the official rules of chess (I suppose). but honestly I wouldn't expect much of response back.
they've played zillions of games at a professional level for some time now. there's been no big controversy about uncastling.
alternately you could try playing the "uncastle" move in an official FIDE tournament. that would go even worse IMHO.
PS. I know your a little stubborn. but I'vl;e heard worse. its ok to rant about this some- its a slow and cold monday
Oh yes there is. FIDE is explicit that only Knights (friend or foe) and a Rook (friend only) can hop over another piece.
In fact, USCF says one CAN move the Rook first (& hand release it !) in tournament play before overswinging their King in a castle move.....FIDE says no - the Rook stays & end of move....but that's another discussion.
....& it's warm here.
Im un-castling from this thread.