I will say this much about castling. Whoever came up with tucking your King into the bosom of Rook + pawn ?....was thinking. Tho' leaving your King exposed to Earth & everyone would have probably created countless miniatures in parlors from Compton to Paris.
Where they drifted off course (& subsequently failed) was breaking chess rule by forbidding you to hit the rewind button.
I guess some songs aren't meant to be played twice.
Just stop okay?
+1
The funny thing is that it does not matter what I or anybody else on this thread says, Ghostess will never agree.
I got fifty bucks says it's a dude who is absolutely LOVING all the attention.
Just in case, somewhere in the fourteen pages of comments, the question has not been answered, and someone is interested in the answer outside of mental fapping:
"3.8 a. 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’."
There is no third way; "uncastling" is not defined. Feel free to resume the regularly scheduled self-abuse.
3.8.b clearly says that castle right is lost once the king has moved.So castling itself cancels any other castling.
It is quite obviously a one time move only.
Not so.
Castling and uncastling is not the same thing.
And with all due respect to Dark Army, his write-up has holes within holes.
But his last sentence is interesting....
Actually, it doesn't.
After you are castled, if you touch the king you must move it and may only move it one square in any direction. To move it any other way is illegal....especially when you are jumping it over a rook.
So, your argument is shot down right then and there. You illegally moved your king.
You can't uncastle for the same reason you can't move pawns backwards.
ITS AN ILLEGAL MOVE!
I don't think mosta u settlement wannavents even know what my argument is.
Yet, noone has politely asked what contents contain my dissolution.
What suma u should do is seek assistance for a pollexanalectomy 'cuz ur sitting around accomplishing that only.
You can't uncastle for the same reason you can't move pawns backwards.
ITS AN ILLEGAL MOVE!
It's NOT an illegal move in practice....u village-tested 75. Noone that I've heard of has pushed a TD's button for clarity ! FIDE's appears massagedly vague about this. I wanna know if they're doing it on purpose or who's come forth to challenge their letter.
....and call ur physician....for everyone's sake, okay ?
You can't uncastle for the same reason you can't move pawns backwards.
ITS AN ILLEGAL MOVE!
Untrue to the point that I'm beginning to wonder if it's u who needs to call 911.
FIDE is explicit about pawns. I only wish you knew the difference between pawns and what Forrest Gump sought....'cuz it'd help put us on the same boat.
Just in case, somewhere in the fourteen pages of comments, the question has not been answered, and someone is interested in the answer outside of mental fapping:
"3.8 a. 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’."
There is no third way; "uncastling" is not defined. Feel free to resume the regularly scheduled self-abuse.
Have considered the very same Mountain per ur username somewhere north of SFO ?....well, why don't u climb it ?....and not come down....
....
"Uncastling" is not listed as a legal move. All legal moves are listed. Therefore "uncastling" is not a legal move. The answer you seek is based on the study of the rules and applied logic.
Here David....hope this helps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPFRIOI-HcE
And BTW, if u plan on winning my trust ?....then u have some worka head of u. Now, I like u 'cuza ur humor, but ur on the bubble (if uv ever taken a bath in 1a those) & it's now up 2u to add scented candles.
Let's say I move my Bishop from c1 to to d2. Then later I move it back from d2 to c1.
What's the difference between this & castling-uncastling ?
You see ?....there isn't one !
gl, i haven't read this whole thread, so, forgive me if this has already been mentioned.
moving the bishop as you wrote is legal. as i read the rules of moves, those by the king are spelled out clearly. no mention of uncastling. the absense of the condition (un castling) means it is unavailable.
having said that, i think it would be an interesting variant.
Oh yes there is. FIDE is explicit that only Knights (friend or foe) and a Rook (friend only) can hop over another piece.
In fact, USCF says one CAN move the Rook first (& hand release it !) in tournament play before overswinging their King in a castle move.....FIDE says no - the Rook stays & end of move....but that's another discussion.
Nope.
The USCF clearly states that if you move your rook first you can NOT castle.
But USCF does have variation of the rule which says that can touch the rook first and still castle. Note that it says touch, NOT move. Thus if you touch the rook you need to let go of it without moving it and actually move the king first. That variation of the official rules should be announced at tournament start.
I will say this much about castling. Whoever came up with tucking your King into the bosom of Rook + pawn ?....was thinking. Tho' leaving your King exposed to Earth & everyone would have probably created countless miniatures in parlors from Compton to Paris.
Where they drifted off course (& subsequently failed) was breaking chess rule by forbidding you to hit the rewind button.
I guess some songs aren't meant to be played twice.