Ok, why are you trolling?
Castling Vertically? Real Rule? If so, how did/does it work?
Sort:
I read that this rule used to exist. Don't know if it's true or not. Makes sense actually though
Ok, why are you trolling?
Castling though, doesn't exclude promoted rooks. There's no rule that says it's impossible. Was asking cause I wasn't sure, obviously. Think this is a troll thread or somethin, nah
No, serious question. I just wanted opinions on this!
If you can make love vertically, you can castle vertically. You start by teeing up the chessboard on the edge of your kitchen sink.
Castling states that the king and rook could not have moved, and the king can;t castle out of or through check. A promoted rook hasn't moved, so why can;t u castle with it?
Pretty sure the rules we use nowadays have only been finalised everywhere for 100 or 200 years. In some places less than that. It is possible in one or two places that is the case. (Like how, for some people, finding out that black moving two pawns on their first move is only a regional thing shocks them)
Ok, why are you trolling?
Speedybulletchess wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:
Castling states that the king and rook could not have moved, and the king can;t castle out of or through check. A promoted rook hasn't moved, so why can;t u castle with it?
The same reason a queen can't move like a knight? Because that's just not the way it is.
That is not a valid analogy. The queen isn't defined to move like a knight. I'm asking why that's not the way it is. It's perfectly valid castling.
Ok, why are you trolling?
OK, why are you trolling?
Speedybulletchess wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:
Speedybulletchess wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:
Castling states that the king and rook could not have moved, and the king can;t castle out of or through check. A promoted rook hasn't moved, so why can;t u castle with it?
The same reason a queen can't move like a knight? Because that's just not the way it is.
That is not a valid analogy. The queen isn't defined to move like a knight. I'm asking why that's not the way it is. It's perfectly valid castling.
Well, a rook that is has been promoted is by definition not allowed to be used to castle. So, I used a completely sound analogy.
And plus, since when did castling with six squares between the rook and king become a thing?
How is a promoted rook defined not to be allowed to castle with? What rule says that. Castling queen side or kingside is with differing # of squares in between, so that's actually irrelevant
FIDE 3.8b
"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."
Guess what! There's a new rule Chess.com is implementing! Now a queen can move like a knight!
Was this, at some stage, maybe a regional variation rule?
Yeah, maybe. Perhaps. Probably.
Was it ever part of the the main chess rules?
Unlikely.
That comment I just said Isn't trolling, I'd like to see someone say so and back that up. That is simple fac, if he's heard about it, and variants can be anything, I don't see why not.
Yeah, maybe. Perhaps. Probably.
Was it ever part of the the main chess rules?
Unlikely.
That comment I just said Isn't trolling, I'd like to see someone say so and back that up. That is simple fac, if he's heard about it, and variants can be anything, I don't see why not.
Oh okay, so it has to occur on the 1st rank and cannot therefore occur on a file. Thanks. Interesting question though. Should it be legal?
I heard there was once a rule that if a pawn promoted to a rook on E8, then the king could move toward it and bring the rook around, like a regular castle? Is this true, and if so, which squares would be castling, just 2 or any #?
The white king would end up on e3?