Why Can't I Uncastle a Castle ?
Sort:
OneThousandEightHundred18
Jul 17, 2017
0
#541
Maybe you should just use common sense instead of trying to find technical ways in which language is an ugly, inexact mess that can't communicate a single idea properly.
I can move my queen like a rook or a bishop. Why can't I move it like a knight too?
Jul 17, 2017
0
#543
....can't help it. It's in me 'cuz my big brothers beat it in to me. It's all their fault. They made me who I am today whether I like it or not. And all I had was mouthy words to defend me.
So now I question all established rules & regulations. Hate me if u want. At this point 'I don't care'. I'm gonna die trying to push to lid of my coffin up 'cuz I will not be accepting it. I promise u.
Jul 17, 2017
0
#544
AussieRookie wrote:
You wouldn't be able to castle if Black's King was on b5, because once the White King moves 2 squares, you'd be in check.
....alrighty then.
Jul 17, 2017
0
#545
1818-1828271 wrote:
Maybe you should just use common sense instead of trying to find technical ways in which language is an ugly, inexact mess that can't communicate a single idea properly.
....and maybe u should see that I'm trying to advance & progress current FIDE Rules....so there isn't a ? consuming some TD in a heated moment of a big tournament !
Jul 17, 2017
0
#546
I don't hate you Lola. I just think you're being ridiculous 😜
Jul 17, 2017
0
#548
oregonpatzer wrote:
I can move my queen like a rook or a bishop. Why can't I move it like a knight too?
....dumb.
Jul 17, 2017
0
#549
Any arbitrary vagueness in the rules is decided by the arbiter using common sense. This is a non-issue that you are taking extremely seriously for no good reason.
you can uncastle manually
Lola: dumb
"It is good that we are being attacked, because it means that we have successfully established a distinction between our attackers and ourselves." --Mao Tse-Tung
Jul 17, 2017
0
#552
Some a u ppl need to get it together. Just found this.
Sometimes u needta answer your own question 'cuz noone else is qualified (or too lazy !) to do so. Tho' putdowns chime in & get me all worked up !
****
Tim Krabbé published an eye-opening problem in Schaakbulletin in 1972. White must mate in 2 from this position:
He does so with 1. e8=R! Kg2 2. O-O-O-O-O-O#:
O-O-O-O-O-O denotes “vertical castling” — the king castles with the new rook on e8. Amazingly, this was arguably legal at the time — here’s how the rules defined castling:
“The king is transferred from its original square, two squares toward the rook; then that rook toward which the king has moved is transferred over the king to the square immediately adjacent to the king.”
All other stipulations are met: Neither the king nor the rook has moved previously, and the king passes through no square guarded by Black.
So, legal, right? Alas, after much debate in Dutch and Belgian chess columns, FIDE revised its rules to refer to a rook “on the same rank.” Some people have no imagination.
In the April 1970 issue of the Journal of Recreational Mathematics— David Silverman says he proposed an “impossible” two-move checkmate, “a problem that generated a lot of heat,” for the Litton Problematical Recreations series following Richard Epstein’s discovery of a similar loophole in Hoyle’s Book of Rules. This anticipates Krabbé’s publication by two years.
....
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote: Some a u ppl need to get it together. Just found this.Sometimes u needta answer your own question 'cuz noone else is qualified (or too lazy !) to do so. Tho' putdowns chime in & get me all worked up !****Tim Krabbé published an eye-opening problem in Schaakbulletin in 1972. White must mate in 2 from this position:He does so with 1. e8=R! Kg2 2. O-O-O-O-O-O#:O-O-O-O-O-O denotes “vertical castling” — the king castles with the new rook on e8. Amazingly, this was arguably legal at the time — here’s how the rules defined castling:“The king is transferred from its original square, two squares toward the rook; then that rook toward which the king has moved is transferred over the king to the square immediately adjacent to the king.”All other stipulations are met: Neither the king nor the rook has moved previously, and the king passes through no square guarded by Black.So, legal, right? Alas, after much debate in Dutch and Belgian chess columns, FIDE revised its rules to refer to a rook “on the same rank.” Some people have no imagination.In the April 1970 issue of the Journal of Recreational Mathematics— David Silverman says he proposed an “impossible” two-move checkmate, “a problem that generated a lot of heat,” for the Litton Problematical Recreations series following Richard Epstein’s discovery of a similar loophole in Hoyle’s Book of Rules. This anticipates Krabbé’s publication by two years. Oh please. Do you have to do this? The answer is simple: the king and rook have already moved.
TremaniSunChild wrote:
The king has moved, so "uncastling" is illegal. Also, castling with a promoted pawn is also illegal. while the rook was a pawn, it moved at least 5 times. And a promoted piece is still a pawn, so the rook has moved before... AND WHY DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS??? ANY CHESS PLAYER SHOULD KNOW THIS. IT'S BASIC STUFF!!! Sorry, I got a little carried away there. But still...
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote: Some a u ppl need to get it together. Just found this.Sometimes u needta answer your own question 'cuz noone else is qualified (or too lazy !) to do so. Tho' putdowns chime in & get me all worked up !****Tim Krabbé published an eye-opening problem in Schaakbulletin in 1972. White must mate in 2 from this position:He does so with 1. e8=R! Kg2 2. O-O-O-O-O-O#:O-O-O-O-O-O denotes “vertical castling” — the king castles with the new rook on e8. Amazingly, this was arguably legal at the time — here’s how the rules defined castling:“The king is transferred from its original square, two squares toward the rook; then that rook toward which the king has moved is transferred over the king to the square immediately adjacent to the king.”All other stipulations are met: Neither the king nor the rook has moved previously, and the king passes through no square guarded by Black.So, legal, right? Alas, after much debate in Dutch and Belgian chess columns, FIDE revised its rules to refer to a rook “on the same rank.” Some people have no imagination.In the April 1970 issue of the Journal of Recreational Mathematics— David Silverman says he proposed an “impossible” two-move checkmate, “a problem that generated a lot of heat,” for the Litton Problematical Recreations series following Richard Epstein’s discovery of a similar loophole in Hoyle’s Book of Rules. This anticipates Krabbé’s publication by two years. Oh please. Do you have to do this? The answer is simple: the king and rook have already moved.
Jul 18, 2017
0
#557
No. You're wrong ! Once a pawn reaches rank 8 ?....IT MORPHS (u dork). So, a promoted piece is NO LONGER A PAWN & never will it be again.
Inquiry: Your planet ?
Jul 18, 2017
0
#558
This is the most pedantic thread I have ever read in my life....
the same way once you shit and it Doesn't go back inside. :)