FIDE changed the rules!

I was told the latter is a myth. FIDE always defined castling correctly but it was intentionally misquoted (by Pam/Krabbé) to set up a joke. Nevertheless the text of the article was changed later to disspell any possibility of someone misreading its intentions.

Btw, the vertical castling is still part of the joke repertoire of the composer community. Don't be surprised to bang into it one day. Or rather, be surprised. You don't wonna spoil the kids fun!

And the same is true for the weird promotions. They are still around in that twilight zone that borders any serious subject. You need not just play games by the rules on chess.com to make your life worthwhile.

It is unfair the FIDE changing the rules of an ancient game, as it was allowed to promote to other color pieces because it could result beneficial in very specific cases. However, it exists an explanation of why promoting to other color pieces should may not be allowed.

When it is your turn, you have the ability to change the position of one of your pieces and provide a check to the oponent if there is a chance. However, if you promote to other color you are creating a new position for other piece that can be used in the cery same turn. This means that if that piece checks the oposite color's king, it would be an illegal move. For example, in the position below, promoting to a black rook or queen should not be allowed.

FIDE tries to fix this problem not allowing to promote your white pawn into other color piece. However, it can be fixed also not allowing the promotion to a queen or rook as well as you are not allowed to move a pinned piece.

In my opinion, the game should be as always has been, not changing any rule of the game. In this case, it exist other type of fixing game-breakimg moves by forbiding them.

honestly promoting to other colours would be pretty cool

Resurrected thread.

The rules were not exactly changed.  Everybody knew that you couldn't promote to a piece of the opposite color but since it didn't explicitly say that in the rulebook some legalistic interpretations were that anything not prohibited is allowed.  To end such nonsense FIDE explicitly stated what had long been known.  That is the same reason they added that castling can only be done between a king and rook on the same rank (some legalistic people would promote an e Pawn to a rook and then castle with it).

I'm wondering when somebody says that a 40/90 time control with a 30 second increment was really in base twelve because FIDE did not explicitly say time controls should be in base 10 (the base 10 equivalents of 40/90 increment 30 in base twelve would be 48/108 increment 36.

The Chess.com rapid time control of G/15, increment 10 would, in base 6, be G/9, increment 6 in base 10.

It is the primary task of FIDE to unify and change the rules of the chess game on planet earth. Like biological species evolve differently in different places when you leave them alone, so chess will diverge into different variants when you leave it to the ancient tribes. You need modern methods of communication and organization to produce rules of consensus for world wide competitions. See all other international games and sports. And I bet that none of them has the exact same rules as 100 years ago.

It's worth noting that chess is probably the most liberal game in the world when it comes to rules as FIDE is accompanied by WFCC, the organization for chess problemists. The latter allows you to define fairy chess types with almost any rules you like. Awkward promotions are as common there as a cup of Ceylon tea, the challenge is to find enough friends to set up an interesting competition!

@24
The Laws of Chess have been reworded a few times.
There has also been a time where in that diagram you could promote the pawn to a white rook and later castle vertically as neither the white king nor the newly promoted rook have moved.

The laws of chess have been modified a number of times, most recently to introduce automatic draws after 5 position repeats or 75 moves without capture or pawn move. There has however been no time when vertical castling was permitted. It was all a concoction by dutch jokers who intentionally misquoted from the active FIDE laws at that time. Nevertheless FIDE saw fit to update its laws to clarify beyond all doubt that vertical castling is illegal. Which it already was except for those with dyslexia or a host of medical eyesight conditions.

@29
‘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.
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E01pre2014

Without the phrase "along the player’s first rank" it was possible to transfer the king from its original square e1 two squares towards the newly promoted rook e8 on its original square i.e. e8, thus the king to e3 and then to transfer Re8 to the square the king has just crossed i.e. the rook to e2.

Yep, and a phrase to the same effect was already present in the FIDE laws of 1977 in the era the castling joke was launched:

Castling is a move of the king and either rook, counting as a single move (of the king), executed as follows: the king is transferred, from its original square, two squares toward either rook ON THE SAME RANK; then that rook toward which the king has been moved is transferred over the king to the square immediately adjacent to the king.

Ranks and files are not interchangeable objects as clearly defined in the same 1977 laws.

2.3. The eight rows of squares running from the edge of the chessboard nearest one player to that nearest the other player are called "files."

2.4. The eight rows of squares running from one edge of the chessboard to the other at right angles to the files are called "ranks."

So the verdict is uncontestable. There has never been a vertical castling right in the FIDE laws. Btw, the jokers knew this very well and acknowledged it in subsequent publications notably in Tim Krabbé's famous book "chess curiosities". It's a 100% fabricated myth.

Addendum: You probably wonder why FIDE changed the wording of the rule later (2008). That is the next part of the joke. Here is the story: https://pijpersh.home.xs4all.nl/index.html?page=https://pijpersh.home.xs4all.nl/nl/schaakrecht/pdg/schaakrecht_pieter_115.html 

Hahaha, it's in dutch! Not surprising since the whole fabrication is of dutch origin. Who else would you expect to display such a double dutch sense of humor? Anyway, FIDE can now excuse itself on the grounds that it didn't change the wording to get rid of the ambiguity but to get rid of the complaints. Okay, Okay we'll change it, just stop nagging us! The jokers won.

The 1930 FIDE laws of chess (Article 8) already required that the king remain in the same rank while castling.

https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/R%C3%A8gle_du_Jeu_d%E2%80%99%C3%89checs_de_la_F._I._D._E._(%C3%A9dition_officielle_1930)

Correct! Always a mystification! Btw you can find the versions of the FIDE laws of the last 50 years here though the most recent ones appear to be missing: https://www.janko.at/Retros/Glossary/index.htm#Rules The oldest one in existence is, I believe, from 1931. I've seen it a while ago but can't remember where.