Why Can't I Uncastle a Castle ?

Ppl give me a hard time all the time about my being steadfast. Have you forgotten that I'm a chessplayer ? Right there. That should say something........

....but I do fight fair (probably too fair - blink blink).

There is no such piece as castle, or K+R. So argument with pieces returning simply does not pertain it.

Because, as stated in another thread, castling is for sissies. By uncastling you stop being a sissy and become a real man.

When you castled, you moved your king and rook. Keeping that in mind, uncastling is actually against the rules in which it stated the rook and king must not have moved. Thanks for bringing up the rules by the way.

@king

that's irony considering the OP.

are you trying to say this proves she wants to switch genders?

unlikely.

As I said earlier, I have every right to retract any "piece" (petty argument: pawns are not pieces) move that I see fit.

For example, if I play 1. Nf3, then I have every right to play 2. Ng1. I am still well within my legal right to do so. Therefore, if I play 0-0, then I have every legal right to play un0-0.

Uncastling or decastling is not castling. I repeat....is NOT castling.

Nowhere in FIDE does it say explicitly that I cannot uncastle. It says one cannot castle twice in a game. But again, castling is NOT uncastling. In fact, they are so different that this shouldn't even be questioned !! Therefore, uncastling should not be confuzed w/ castling in any way shape or form.

All this is implied desist stuff. It is not letter of the law. Not even close. And @ this point, I am requiring anyone to find in FIDE rules where it says I cannot uncastle. 

That argument is flimsy and frankly dismissable - to me.

The question now becomes "Has the move ever been tried ?" or "Has it ever been +/- challenged/tested in tournament play ?"

The argument is why cannot I so-call unplay a move ? When it is, in fact, constitutes a move within itself that breaks no piece move rules ?

Un en passant requires a pawn to move backwards and FIDE is explicit in stating pawns cannot to this. So that one doesn't pass the test.

It certainly wouldn't be the strangest thing she (or he?) has done.

Part of your argument is that FIDE does not explicitly state that you cannot uncastle. But this is not a strong argument. There are lots of things that FIDE does not explicitly state that you cannot do. For example, FIDE does not state that the bishop cannot move along the files and columns like a rook. FIDE only states that a bishop can move along the diagonals. However the reason that we know that a bishop moving from say a1 to h1 would be illegal is not because FIDE states that this type of move is illegal - but rather because FIDE does not state that it is legal. There are all sorts of moves - perhaps an infinite number - that could in theory be made. We could move a queen like a knight; we could move a rook like a bishop. FIDE does not explicitly state that these moves are illegal (to do so would be almost impossible). However, these moves are illegal because they are not included by FIDE as legal moves. 

Uncastling is therefore illegal because it is not included by FIDE as a legal move. 

I'm acting like #50 was never posted. I liked #44 tho'........

Variant ?....no no no. This is well within the standard of chess moves questioning (legitimate). And the question is not about demand. It's about supply. I can almost promise you that w/ this resource it probably coulda saved many a game !

Not true. Uncastling, if allowed (has it been tested ?....not yet to our knowledge) is separate, unique, & distinctive and I feel should be treated as such. It is not castling as castling is specifically defined by FIDE & this is clearly not castling.

I could be in agreement that Uncastling could only be used once in a game. That much I'll relent.

****

"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."

****

This strengthens my argument !!

....the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square....

The King IS being tranferred BACK to its original square !! Therefore, it actually isn't a 3rd move....it maintains an equal & opposite move to the origin of castling !!

Okay. Let's go back to 1. Nf3. Then 2.Ng1.

It may be (2) moves yet the board remains unchanged from set up ! Can't you see the parallel for my dispute ? Has this Kn move above broken any FIDE Law ?

There's no parallel in the analogy of the Knight moving back to g1.

Not true jengy. You're not exclusively wrong here, but you're not right here either. FIDE has gone grey here. In the so-called second way, the castling way, you're not violating any move structure when unwinding your castle.

FIDE needs to be specific & say you can't do an uncastle. They're implying that in 3.8a but there's a big hole in it.

The Trolls are getting cleverer.  Some day, would one of them explain to me just what feeble pleasure they get from starting useless arguments, then keeping them going after they have been done to death.

Out to #61:

There absolutely is too ! My point is that you can "unmove" the Kn back to g1 w/out rule violation and subsequently find the board undisturbed. Yet they're (2) separate & distinct moves !