Why Can't I Uncastle a Castle ?

This thread is getting a bit surreal!

What do you mean? An African or European swallow?

You move your king when you castle, therefore you can't castle again or "uncastle".

castling is a commitment.  think of the children ...

Poor, deprived little rooks...

I think you have made an interesting observation with this castling twice argument.

The rules of chess explain how the pieces are to be moved and that any other way of moving them is illegal. That's why it's not necessary for the rules of chess to explain that it's illegal to move the queen like a knight. It explains that how to move the queen is the only way you can move the queen.

Pawns may only move forward or diagonally when capturing. Moving them any other way is illegal according to the rules.

The rules explain how to castle and the proper way of doing it. You must touch the king first.

It doesn't really say that you cant uncastle, but there is probably some issue with your argument anyway.

1. The rule for uncastling and the proper way to do it is not explained (Where the king and rook is to be placed). Because of this, moving them anywhere that is not in accordance with how a king and rook are to be moved would be illegal.

2. The factors that may make uncastling temporarily unavailable (Crossing through check, etc...) is not defined. Because of this, there is no proper way to uncastle. Therefore, uncastling can probably just be called illegal.

3. After you are castled, if you touch the king you must move the king. However, moving it two squares away is illegal. The fact that you touch the rook afterwards is probably irrelevant. 

3. If you touch the rook first in the act of uncastling, you must move the rook. But to move it over the king is an illegal move.

I agree that the rules of chess should explain that castling should be allowed only once.

Pawns promote to qrnb didn't they have to add of the same color because of someone changing to opponents piece once? I read that someone argued that a pawn promoted to rook on the last rank was a rook never moved so it was legal to castle.loop holes are usually ridiculous aggravatons aren't they.

LoLa, there are no other interpretations

 Dear Lola, the reason you can't uncastle is not because there is no regulation written about, its because it violence ethic principles of the game. The move castles should be a commital one justifying a strategic decision with no flexibility to recall your decision, otherwise the game of chess its gonna lose it interest and logic.

Let me give you an example. I played this game before a year ago in a complex variation Archangelsk -Ruy Lopez named by Alexey Shirov " Death on the long diagonal". After 23 moves we reached in this position where still i didnt knew if i had to castle or not. My Kingside is wide open when the first player can use pawn breaks to make it more open. If i castle my opponent its gonna mobilize hes entire army to strike there think which is totally different if i dont. Now if i had the right to play 24...0-0 and uncastle after five or six moves then the strategic decision tooked place from my opponent in that period would had absolutely no meaning. 

 The reason you cant uncastle is because chess is losing the element of being a strategic game after that.

I should be able to uncapture too. Move my piece back putting back the piece I captured on that square.

I should also be able to move my pawns backwards.

Yes Jengaias, I do! Perhaps Lola is a stubborn mule in her beliefs but not an idiot. She is looking for practical evidence not mambo jumbo comments and conversations based on dogmatic facts in style : 3.8 pawns go only forward.

Why pawns go only forward? What would have change to the game of chess in practical view if pawns can go backwards also? Can you answer this question practical? Why pawn moves forward must be comittal? What's the issue?

Don't look elsewhere, it's all about strategy. The art of thinking logical is based to the fact that some things in our life can't go back.

If anybody wants to read a review of this troll thread, he can go here:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/a-trolling-critique

My post is pointless.

Someone stand up and tell me it's against the law to openly wonder about why castling is the way it is.

I mean, noone here has ever wondered why on that one-and-only move your pieces can't move back from where they came ?

You couldn't even make the castling move up in science fiction story....it's sooo weird !

And IDK why, but sometimes I feel stuck like a bug in a tub after I do it. Especially when the next move my yucky opp does a pawn storm ! 

Because existing rules create very enjoyable game as proved by millions of players and few hundred years of history.

What kind of game is your "uncastle" variant - nobody knows.

day 2.

face it chess community.  had the modern game developed a tad differently their would be uncastling.

and, shockingly, it would probably still have been popular.

its not like I would want to uncastle very often.

Very funny....you of all people. I would surmise ur a benevolent contributor to all your friends at Ouzo.

#196 is the closest comment to support so far. And that makes me feel kinda good.