*sigh* get ready for Chess Armageddon
Why Can't I Uncastle a Castle ?
Sort:
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
theflyingtinman wrote:
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Again, for about the umpteenth time:
If I move 1. Nc3 and then 2. Nb1. Is this piece move illegal ?
No. But it's not an "un-move". It is a legal move (as described in the rules) that just happens to end up with the piece back where it started.
....and therefore, NOTHING has changed. Which bodes well for the argument, "Did the King ever really move ?"...of which I say yes.
IOW's, one could say one could now 0-0-0 after 0-0 then a X-X (what could be the oppposite of a nomenclature Castling ?) so long as the Q'side Rook hasn't moved.
Phew, I'm glad to see you decided to use gobbldygook instead of logic to discredit my answer. Now I can leave this thread I stumbled into ten minutes ago and go back to sleep. 
Jul 20, 2017
0
#624
As a sidenote, & this's another day, is I feel a player can leave a pawn a pawn at the promotion square ! Note that it can never move again, but it can setup an imposition....which would be cool !
I sense that the only way I could ever impact this ?....is I'll hafta find my way onto the FIDE rules committe and work my way up the the executive committee to punch this thru.
The game definitely needs some evolution. It needs itsy bitsy thible doses of enrichment & depth. It's grown somewhat stale & I see an opportunity to put my mark on hte game I so truly love & only wish I understood.
Jul 20, 2017
0
#625
U just read it too fast tinman. Slow down & gurgitate the concepts in earnest, wouldja ?
The_Ghostess_Lola escribió:
I sense that the only way I could ever impact this ?....is I'll hafta find my way onto the FIDE rules committe and work my way up the the executive committee to punch this thru.
Seems unlikely, the only way would be to convince them it would be a great business.
timothy_xie wrote:
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
(#745) Uncastling doesn't seem to add anything to the game, and using a "consistency in logic" argument for it just makes absolutely no sense when the rules are completely arbitrary.
Doncha see ?....neither does Castling ! The pro-side would be one expels tempi to render an attack at the expense of leaving your king exposed like he was at a defrocked colony. Tho' if I was playing Bobby Fischer ?....even he couldn't stop me from castling....ever. I could do it on the 4rd move & he couldn't ever do anything about it (plus he'd be giving me knight odds).
Castling is to keep your king safe quickly, duh! Imagine if the castling rule wasn't invented; then games would be a lot shorter, mainly because people get checkmated in the middle of the board with no way to get their king safe quickly. And by the way, "tempi" isn't a word; it's supposed to be tempos.
The people who use the word tempi dont know that it's not a word. There are probably many words that are not words. One of my favorites is gription. There should be a resource available where all words are collected into one thing where you could go and look up a word and see if it really is a word.
Jul 20, 2017
0
#628
timothy_xie wrote:
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
(#745) Uncastling doesn't seem to add anything to the game, and using a "consistency in logic" argument for it just makes absolutely no sense when the rules are completely arbitrary.
Doncha see ?....neither does Castling ! The pro-side would be one expels tempi to render an attack at the expense of leaving your king exposed like he was at a defrocked colony. Tho' if I was playing Bobby Fischer ?....even he couldn't stop me from castling....ever. I could do it on the 4rd move & he couldn't ever do anything about it (plus he'd be giving me knight odds).
Castling is to keep your king safe quickly, duh! Imagine if the castling rule wasn't invented; then games would be a lot shorter, mainly because people get checkmated in the middle of the board with no way to get their king safe quickly. And by the way, "tempi" isn't a word; it's supposed to be tempos.
It is somewhere in Arizona. And besides, I thought it was the plural form of tempo. That is, unless u live in a world of alternative spelling bee definitions....luv.
And BTW, if u haven't noticed ?....both sides will need to protect their King should there not be the Castling rule....remember ?
And FYI, since u need reminding ?....I'm not asking for the Castling rule to be forgone. That's where ur logic is failing....once again.
I strongly suggest u DO NOT trust your logic....as it is suspect to a fault !
Jul 20, 2017
0
#629
(#763) The people who use the word tempi dont know that it's not a word.
Well then, u needta reel urself in....'cuz the bottom fish u just caught ?....is actually you !
tem·pi
ˈtempē/
-
plural form of tempo.
Jul 20, 2017
0
#630
twighead wrote:
Ghostess is a few steps ahead of most of the members here, truly revolutionary thought!!
+0.5 for trying ?
Jul 20, 2017
0
#631
Pulpofeira wrote:
The_Ghostess_Lola escribió:
I sense that the only way I could ever impact this ?....is I'll hafta find my way onto the FIDE rules committe and work my way up the the executive committee to punch this thru.
Seems unlikely, the only way would be to convince them it would be a great business.
And so we continue to increase the # of draws as time ticks on.
....how novel...here, let me yawn for everyone so u can count my fillings !
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
What the--? The only draws that are boring are at GM level. Since you're no GM, what do you have to complain about? Even if Uncastling was allowed, some games would still end in quick draws. That's just the way it is.
Pulpofeira wrote:
The_Ghostess_Lola escribió:
I sense that the only way I could ever impact this ?....is I'll hafta find my way onto the FIDE rules committe and work my way up the the executive committee to punch this thru.
Seems unlikely, the only way would be to convince them it would be a great business.
And so we continue to increase the # of draws as time ticks on.
....how novel...here, let me yawn for everyone so u can count my fillings !
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
So there!
Pulpofeira wrote:
The_Ghostess_Lola escribió:
I sense that the only way I could ever impact this ?....is I'll hafta find my way onto the FIDE rules committe and work my way up the the executive committee to punch this thru.
Seems unlikely, the only way would be to convince them it would be a great business.
And so we continue to increase the # of draws as time ticks on.
....how novel...here, let me yawn for everyone so u can count my fillings !
Look, I don't know. Whoever made the rule of castling just didn't think it was a good idea.
Jul 21, 2017
0
#635
you cant do this because before castling was implemented, your king could jump two squares in any direction on his first move or like a knight,IF he isnt in check or hasnt moved yet(sounds familiar,doesnt it?).it was a common combination,in which you first move your rook to the king and then you jump over the rook with the king.this move combination someday got combined to the move 0-0 and0-0-0 we know today.back then there was no double move cobi to uncastle so why schould there be one today?
Jul 21, 2017
0
#636
To this moment, I haven't heard the pro-side make a legitimate case for a reason to castle. It may appear to be a convenience and a game speeder upper....but whatever the reason ?....what one side can do, the other can do, right ?
Also, if "turtle" castling was all that there was ?....then both sides would take time out to do so. Noting that there could be a limited myriad of patterns to make a King's fortress (currently there are (2)....fianchetto & conventional). As far as saying, "Well, it wires up the Rooks" means nothing. Connecting rooks has nothing to do w/ protecting the king. That's a byproduct of.
All I can deduce is that it's accepted convention & arbitrary & probably had a WOW ! factor back when it was first introduced. I surmise that some King & Court (along w/ other fellow feifdoms made it a standard).
Well, accepted convention isn't good enuf 4me & makes for a poor excuse !
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
(#763) The people who use the word tempi dont know that it's not a word.
Well then, u needta reel urself in....'cuz the bottom fish u just caught ?....is actually you !
tem·pi
ˈtempē/
plural form of tempo.
Nevermind. You didn't get it. At all.
Why Can't I Uncastle a Castle ?
Here's one way 
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
(#763) The people who use the word tempi dont know that it's not a word.
Well then, u needta reel urself in....'cuz the bottom fish u just caught ?....is actually you !
tem·pi
ˈtempē/
plural form of tempo.
Noun
tempo (plural tempos or tempi)
- A frequency or rate.
- (chess) A move which is part of one's own plan or strategy and forces, e.g. by means of a check or attacking a piece, the opponent to make a move which is not bad but of no use for him (the player gains a tempo, the opponent loses a tempo), or equivalently a player achieves the same result in fewer moves by one approach rather than another.
- . . .
- . . .
Usage notes
Again, for about the umpteenth time:
If I move 1. Nc3 and then 2. Nb1. Is this piece move illegal ?
No. But it's not an "un-move". It is a legal move (as described in the rules) that just happens to end up with the piece back where it started.
....and therefore, NOTHING has changed. Which bodes well for the argument, "Did the King ever really move ?"...of which I say yes.
IOW's, one could say one could now 0-0-0 after 0-0 then a X-X (what could be the oppposite of a nomenclature Castling ?) so long as the Q'side Rook hasn't moved.