Why Can't I Uncastle a Castle ?

 Also, just because in the FIDE rulebook that one cannot "Fart loudly during a chess game" doesn't mean I can continuously fart for the rest of the game, and make my opponent distracted by the noise and stench.

Oh for crying out loud!! This is just rediculous.

Fide 3.8 says EXPLICITLY THAT THERE ONLY TWO WAYS OF MOVING A KING ...

... AND "UNCastle" isn't one of them!

Here is something that sounds like it's distributed by the waypoint foundation on FIDE Laws of Chess which sounds like it was adopted at the 75th FIDE Congress at Calvia in Mallorca back in October of 2004 and enforced on July 1, 2005.

As a part of Article 3 that addresses castling.... 

3.8 a. There are two different ways of moving the king, by: i. moving to any adjoining square not attacked by one or more of the opponent`s pieces. or ii. `castling`. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour on the same 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, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed. (1) The right for castling has been lost: a. if the king has already moved, or b. with a rook that has already moved (2) Castling is prevented temporarily a. if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent`s pieces. b. if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected. 3.9 The king is said to be `in check` if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent`s pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check. 

Again, the argument is not if the King has already moved upon castling. Remember, the King can freely move after it has castled, right ? 

So. Why can't it uncastled ? Keep in mind that castling is not uncastling....nor vice versa. Yet is not a purely unfamiliar move, so it wouldn't qualify as a "variant" move.

I would extend that once you castle, then uncastle, you are not eligible to castle again. This right has been given up per Article 3.8a.

The critical point here is that every single piece move (not including pawns....some say they're not pieces anywayz) in chess can be legally reversed. So. Why can't castling ?....since FIDE is apparently grey here ?

You can !....Rh1 to Rf1 and don't do a swingover w/ your king. Qualify ?

'Cuz pieces have been removed from the board !....now we're n2 bughouse. Or upon promotion, pawns have been irreversibly morphed.

Wait a sec. The swingover doe-see-doh that the King does in castling wouldn't violate the uncastling move....it's still a 2-step, right ?

You always move your king first. I want to be able to move it from e1 to g1 in one move.

You missed my point on this argument. Just because the rulebook doesn't state it doesn't mean it's legal. If FIDE stated everything, then the rulebook would be longer than all the wikipedia articles stacked together.

So I take that back. USCF says you can castle even if you touch your Rook first and do a release....then grab your King for a swingover.

FIDE says your Rook stays and your move is complete.

There is nothing grey here, uncastling is not defined as legal move hence it's illegal as per 3.10b (of new rules).

By the way not only pawn moves but also captures can't be reversed but that's irrelevant.

You can't conclude that 'cuz it's presumptuous. 'Cuz it's not defined as a legal move yet its equal & opposite is ?....doesn't make it illegal 'cuz FIDE isn't specific.

It just makes FIDE a shade of grey.

 This is the smothered mate thread all over again...

If a move isn't isn't explicitly allowed, by the rules, it it denied/illegal.

3.10b A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9

Then we just need 50 corrupt federations to get a mediocre book.

....and if you don't, USCF says you can still castle.

Remember, pawns are not involved, uncastling is "board" legal, the = & opposite castle move IS legal, no pieces have been promoted, & no pieces have been removed from the board.

And because it may throw an imbalance when comparing it to the game of chess of old is not good enuf for me. I couldn't care less. 

There is no notion of "board" legal in the rules but there is this:

3.10b A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9

And you prefered to repeatedly ignore this, I guess the argument is over.

Lola my love! I am devastated watching this thread because I don't know if I have to feel sorry for what happens to you or to feel happy for your quriosity to answer this question. I can't hide that it would have be very convenient in some positions where the King and rook didn't moved after castling to be able uncastling. I remember my self playing black pieces in some weird Najdorf and Pirc defenses where I wished to had this privilege! Oh dear what I am talking about...

Imagine the first player to have deploy a perfect strategy to pressure your castling side and when is ready to unleash the final combination suddenly you ...uncastle and everything is pointless.

The only think I can say, is that castling it's a commital move and one of the beauty's in the game is to think if you should castle or not and when... I am not sure can say the same for the opposite. It looks unfair...rule or regulation.

Thank you for your concern. I missed you.

And this.