Author: Chris Kantack
Date: 20:14:47 01/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2003 at 19:24:05, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 04, 2003 at 19:13:06, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>(ii) 'castling'. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour^, >>>>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, then that >>>>rook is transferred over the king to the square the king has just crossed. >>>> >>>> (1) Castling is illegal: >>>> >>>> [a] if the king has already been moved, or >>>> [b] with a rook that has already been moved >>> >>>The rook has already been moved in the time when it was a pawn so castling is >>>illegal by fide rules. >>>The rule does not say that the rook has to be a rook at the time that it moved. >>> >> >>You didn't read my post till the end. Scroll down the page... > >You are right but even without the part of the fide rule that say the same >rank it is possible to understand that castling is illegal. > >Uri I can understand Uri's and FIDE's reasoning as well. Think of the "army analogy". The rook has indeed moved. True, he was a pawn once but now he is a rook and, despite his new rank, he is still the same guy. (Well maybe now he hangs out at the officers' club instead of his old buddies.) Chris
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.