There's no need for that...
Why Can't I Uncastle a Castle ?
Sort:
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
What in the hell? I haven't heard any titled players say they voted for Uncastling. Just because you want Uncastling doesn't mean anybody else wants it! Now, you have to take your argument to USCF, FIDE, and SCCF! Along with all the opposition, I'm not sure how Uncastling actually helps. You have to make an actually valid point in order to convince me.
To this moment, I haven't heard the pro-side make a legitimate case for a reason to castle. It may appear to be a convenience and a game speeder upper....but whatever the reason ?....what one side can do, the other can do, right ?
Also, if "turtle" castling was all that there was ?....then both sides would take time out to do so. Noting that there could be a limited myriad of patterns to make a King's fortress (currently there are (2)....fianchetto & conventional). As far as saying, "Well, it wires up the Rooks" means nothing. Connecting rooks has nothing to do w/ protecting the king. That's a byproduct of.
All I can deduce is that it's accepted convention & arbitrary & probably had a WOW ! factor back when it was first introduced. I surmise that some King & Court (along w/ other fellow feifdoms made it a standard).
Well, accepted convention isn't good enuf 4me & makes for a poor excuse !
JesseHernandez wrote:
Can someone, please, explain the concept of a draw? My games keep ending in a draw and I can't tell when one is about to happen. The last game I played I was Black and all White had was a Pawn with his King while my King had 2 Queens, a Bishop, a Rook and 2 Pawns. i had just turned my second Pawn into Queen and I expected to check and mate in the next few moves when the game was declared a stalemate.
!'d appreciate any help I can get on this subject.
Jesse
There are a number of ways for a game to result in a draw. "Stalemate" is one where your last move (in the case you mention, that was when you acquired a new queen) does not put your opponent in check, but leaves him no move other than moving into, or revealing, check on his king.
While it may feel as though you deserve a "win" if your opponent cannot make a move except to move into check, it is in fact a draw, by the rules.
"Stalemate" was formally declared a 'draw' in rules in the 19th century. Before that is was variously considered a win, or 'half-win'.
you can manually
inbeforethelock
Aug 24, 2017
0
#647
TremaniSunChild wrote:
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
To this moment, I haven't heard the pro-side make a legitimate case for a reason to castle. It may appear to be a convenience and a game speeder upper....but whatever the reason ?....what one side can do, the other can do, right ?
Also, if "turtle" castling was all that there was ?....then both sides would take time out to do so. Noting that there could be a limited myriad of patterns to make a King's fortress (currently there are (2)....fianchetto & conventional). As far as saying, "Well, it wires up the Rooks" means nothing. Connecting rooks has nothing to do w/ protecting the king. That's a byproduct of.
All I can deduce is that it's accepted convention & arbitrary & probably had a WOW ! factor back when it was first introduced. I surmise that some King & Court (along w/ other fellow feifdoms made it a standard).
Well, accepted convention isn't good enuf 4me & makes for a poor excuse !
What in the hell? I haven't heard any titled players say they voted for Uncastling. Just because you want Uncastling doesn't mean anybody else wants it! Now, you have to take your argument to USCF, FIDE, and SCCF! Along with all the opposition, I'm not sure how Uncastling actually helps. You have to make an actually valid point in order to convince me.
....MY BACK POCKET !!
you can if you try
Uncastling here would be mate in 1!
Uncastling might be good if u castled, and then ur opponent starts pawn storming that side of the board, and then u simple uncastle the king back to the center. Might not help that much though. Here's an interesting question, once u uncastle, can u RE-castle?
I don't like the idea. If you castle, you take the risk of a pawn storm. You have to have the skill and foresight to defend it.
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
What it all comes down to is that Uncastling a arbitrary no-no w/ very little, if any, substance. Substance that I cannot find reason for.
And isn't chess just that ?....for minds that reason ?
yes i know how,though it is silly
there 
lol
Aug 29, 2017
0
#654
EndgameStudy wrote:
Uncastling might be good if u castled, and then ur opponent starts pawn storming that side of the board, and then u simple uncastle the king back to the center. Might not help that much though. Here's an interesting question, once u uncastle, can u RE-castle?
I will be lobbying to FIDE for NO. Since castling is a "one-time" move, then uncastling would be also.
Aug 29, 2017
0
#655
Koenig_Erwin wrote:
Why am i a not Kasparov?!!
Ahhh, I don't u wanna be....after the barrage of verbal abuse he's taken 'cuza his performance last week.
Aug 29, 2017
0
#656
imagine if pawns were allowed go backwards, i reckon that would really get joe public interested in the game, the rules are too antiquated.
The game has rules, to uncastle is against the rules, it is that simple.
I think it brings up a good point. If we castle, we should be able to un-castle. However, it should be allowed only once, just like castling can only happen once.
Can someone, please, explain the concept of a draw? My games keep ending in a draw and I can't tell when one is about to happen. The last game I played I was Black and all White had was a Pawn with his King while my King had 2 Queens, a Bishop, a Rook and 2 Pawns. i had just turned my second Pawn into Queen and I expected to check and mate in the next few moves when the game was declared a stalemate.
!'d appreciate any help I can get on this subject.
Jesse