FIDE changed the rules again!
Sort:
Sep 26, 2007
0
#2
Why did FIDE have to change the rules to forbid this type of "castling"? It is perfectly logical.
I'm guessing it's because they didn't think of it first. Maybe they felt bad for not having the notation already in place.
I'm not sure 'changing' the rules is the right word, since this had never come up in the past. It's more like 'clarifying' the rules. The rook was formerly a pawn (which obviously had moved), so they just wanted to clear up the ambiguity.
(OK, sorry for the nitpicking... 
)
fischer wrote:
This makes sence to me, and I would wonder why it took so long for FIDE to make this clearification.
I'm not sure 'changing' the rules is the right word, since this had never come up in the past. It's more like 'clarifying' the rules. The rook was formerly a pawn (which obviously had moved), so they just wanted to clear up the ambiguity.
(OK, sorry for the nitpicking... )
This makes sence to me, and I would wonder why it took so long for FIDE to make this clearification.
Clarifying does sound better. I guess this hasn't happened much in tournament play. Who would leave off castling and have a centralized King while the e-file is semi-open?
Maybe "of the same color" was always in the rule books and folks were just not very good at looking up rules. But that has nothing to do with this puzzle. This is about the castling rules, not the promotion rules. In 1972 when Tim Krabbe made this puzzle this form of castling was still legal.
Leave it to people to squabble over rules anyway no matter how simple and clear they are to most of us.
- I recall an argument at a tournament over whether someone could promote to a Queen since he already had a Queen and there were no more Queens in the set.
- Another time someone wanted to promote to a King so that he would have to get checkmated in places to lose.
- And then there was the man who insisted that his opponent couldn't castle since he moved his Rook before he moved his King.
Actually, I think the last guy is right. Castling is a King move and the rules of touch move say you touch it you move it so he would have to move his Rook.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that once upon a time, you could simply leave the pawn a pawn (that is, not promote it), to avoid stalemate in certain positions. But this rule was changed at some point. Does anybody know what the story is?
two things: the first is that it should be 0-0-0-0-0-0, not 0-0-0-0. The second is that the pawn becomes a rook, not that the a rook replaces the pawn, so that then castling like that is illegal (it's like the fact that it's correct to say "The chess player had a car accident" even if he had the car accident before he became a chess player).
It used too be illegal for a king too have two queens b/c it was considered un-christian, but that rule got changed.
1) was once correct now incorrect
2)totaly wrong
3) is correct in a touch move game, but most ppl would would let it slide its just being an ass too your opponent.
I remember hearing on NPR that the Catholic church tried (and failed) to make it illegal to have two queens, because they thought that the idea would somehow undermine their power.
According to fide rules if you touch the rook first when castling the arbiter will warn you and perhaps penalize you on the clock, IF your opponent complains. Usually you are not made to move the rook nor do you forfeit the game. Its really up to the arbiter and he will usually do nothing unless the opponent omplains.
I don't know about that rule of castling, I didn't know you could go across the board i thought it was only the back rank, but in any case even if this castling was allowed, legal or possible if would not be a valid king move since the king would be passing through a check by the black pawn.
no it wouldn't froilan. you're moving the king too far. to castle, the king moves only 2 spaces towards whichever rook, and the rook jumps over. so the king would not be moving through check here.
it does not matter if the rook moves through threatened space. that's still legal.
It doesn't make sense to castle that way. Castling should only be able to occurr with the 2 intial rooks.
Now I'm totally confused. If you move the white king two squares toward the rook on the back row, you place it right next to the black king, and thus in check. I'm not sure I understand what this puzzle's all about.
Can someone clarify??
The fact anybody had to actually complain they could not castle that way is ridiculous
what if black playes d4 or Gxf3 on the 1st move
FIDE had to change the rules again after this puzzle! NOW the rule says castling can only be done with Rooks in the same rank.
White to play Mate in three!!!