....power flickering & I hate it.
Why Can't I Uncastle a Castle ?
Sort:
@p2tp : ". . . introducing a new possibility of this kind, ''un-calslting, . . . paralyzing the game of chess forever . . . "
Maybe not forever - but the entire board of FIDE would probably be paralyzed by fits of laughter for a few weeks if someone actually made a serious proposal to allow "un-castling" 
Oct 6, 2017
0
#685
Most of the board is probably made up a ppl who wanted to be good CP's but lacked the talent.
Ppl still can't seem to answer my question as to WHY castling is allowed in the first place.
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
That is 'cuz most of us don't know! (Including me). Ask the officials!
Most of the board is probably made up a ppl who wanted to be good CP's but lacked the talent.
Ppl still can't seem to answer my question as to WHY castling is allowed in the first place.
Why can't I un-play a game?
This thread was funny at first, but now it's starting to get annoying.
Lola, the god of trolls is smiling down on you. *SIGHHHHH*
I think the original poster is asking whether a rule revision in chess would add something to the game. Although some think that chess began as a war game in India, where the pieces' moves represented actual moves of various implements in warfare (e.g., the Queen's move represented the rapid motion which could be achieved by troops on boats on the many rivers of India), there is no longer any 'real world' situation which the rules of chess have to simulate, so we can refashion them as we choose.
Allowing players to undo a castled position could add a new element to the game and might well be useful in exceptional circumstances. It would make the game more complex by creating a new type of piece relationship, where the orientation of two pieces would have potential for sudden change built into it.
Luitpoldt wrote:
We understand, but the OP is still trying to prove her point. We get it! That is the annoying part.
I think the original poster is asking whether a rule revision in chess would add something to the game. Although some think that chess began as a war game in India, where the pieces' moves represented actual moves of various implements in warfare (e.g., the Queen's move represented the rapid motion which could be achieved by troops on boats on the many rivers of India), there is no longer any 'real world' situation which the rules of chess have to simulate, so we can refashion them as we choose.
Allowing players to undo a castled position could add a new element to the game and might well be useful in exceptional circumstances. It would make the game more complex by creating a new type of piece relationship, where the orientation of two pieces would have potential for sudden change built into it.
Oct 23, 2017
0
#692
power_2_the_people wrote:
I'm glad you're back, I think I feel better now.
Thanx P2P. Power is slowly improving & we're @da beginnings of getting back to normal. Power lacking on weekends & better during the bizness dayz.
Oct 23, 2017
0
#693
Luitpoldt wrote:
I think the original poster is asking whether a rule revision in chess would add something to the game. Although some think that chess began as a war game in India, where the pieces' moves represented actual moves of various implements in warfare (e.g., the Queen's move represented the rapid motion which could be achieved by troops on boats on the many rivers of India), there is no longer any 'real world' situation which the rules of chess have to simulate, so we can refashion them as we choose.
Allowing players to undo a castled position could add a new element to the game and might well be useful in exceptional circumstances. It would make the game more complex by creating a new type of piece relationship, where the orientation of two pieces would have potential for sudden change built into it.
Thanx 4yer moral support Luit ! I feel some small complexities would add richness to a somewhat stale game at the very top. In this effort to change thoughts about castling, I would include not being forced to promote to a piece, but that's a whole separate thread.
Remember, BF tried for years to add complexities that included C960, clock musings, etc.
*YAWN* 😪
You can no more uncastle a castle than you can unapple an apple.
Well, case solved.
Oct 30, 2017
0
#697
TremaniSunChild wrote:
Well, case solved.
How would u know about solving stuff ?....u probably couldn't hummm the jeopardy song - let alone solve a question in the grade skool version.
TRextastic wrote:
I don't mean to be rude, but is this a joke? The rules of chess hardly make room for illegal moves. And they only tend to apply in relation to being in check. The vast majority of movement rules pertains to what you can do. What you do in chess is what you are allowed to do. It's not free reign to play however you want, only watching to avoid illegal moves. Castling is a move that was specifically allowed. The rules are perfectly clear: "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’." That specifically disallows any sort of other movement. Again, I don't know if this is just a joke or troll thread but it's pretty dum
YO chill, she's just asking a question. Actually there is no rule that says u can't uncaslte. Maybe though, since u can't castle after u've moved ur king and rook, u can't uncastle after u castle, cause u've moved your king already in the process of castling
Lola, I'm at a loss for words
It's okay P2P....I'll console u 'cuz ur nice to me
.