Women World Fischer Random Championship 2019 Next Month in USA

[Michel]

That's not what you are claiming.

You have repeatedly gotten wrong what I'm claiming.

Now I'm going to claim that you're the only person in the world that considers a King on c1 castling with a rook on h1 a legal chess move. If anybody reading this agrees with you and replies to this message saying that indeed, King on c1 castling with a rook on h1 is a legal chess move, I'll concede and accept that I was wrong and that I don't even know what is a legal move in chess.

If you have a family member that knows chess, and they agree with you that King on c1 castling with a rook on h1 is a legal chess move, or you know someone that knows chess (perhaps in a chess club?) that agrees with you it's legal, I'll also concede.

If at any point, when you ask them, you have to bring up Chess960 to make them agree with you, it doesn't count (we're talking about chess, exclusively.)

Otherwise, you claiming that a King on c1 castling with a Rook on h1 is a legal chess move makes no sense and I'm done with you. Enjoy having the last word.

A king on c1 with castling rights for white is impossible in ordinary chess. So it is completely pointless to argue whether in that situation castling would be legal or not.

Here is a question of similar nature: what are the legal moves in ordinary chess of a pawn on A1?

[jp]

... I said a King on c1 castling with an h1 rook was illegal...

It's curious to be having popular opinions as of late, usually I'm the one defending the crazy stance, but I'd never be on the side claiming a move that clearly was illegal, wasn't...

Your "argument" about a king on c1 castling being "illegal" is equivalent to saying that the move 1.Ne3 is "illegal".

It's only illegal in traditional chess because of the one valid starting position, with the Ns on b1 and g1. If the N is on d1 or f1, of course it's legal. It's not the moves, it's the starting positions.


But you knew that, early, before you started contradicting yourself...

You can only castle if they haven't moved. FIDE rules do not specify which files they have to be in for castling.

But they specify their starting squares, and if they haven't moved, they're still there.

[Ovyron]

Here is a question of similar nature: what are the legal moves in ordinary chess of a pawn on A1?

If there's a pawn on A1 then it's clearly not chess, just like if you witness a King on c1 castling with a Rook on h1 (and it's legal) it's also clearly not chess.

Your "argument" about a king on c1 castling being "illegal" is equivalent to saying that the move 1.Ne3 is "illegal".

Knight to e3 is sometimes a first legal chess move (mainly, if there's a Knight on e1 or on f1 that can make the move), but King on c1 castling with a Rook on h1 is never a legal chess move.

[jp]

Knight to e3 is sometimes a first legal chess move (mainly, if there's a Knight on e1 or on f1 that can make the move), but King on c1 castling with a Rook on h1 is never a legal chess move.

No, not true. In both cases, it's just about the allowed starting positions.

[Ovyron]

No, not true. In both cases, it's just about the allowed starting positions.

Allowing the king to start on c1 does not include allowing it to castle, that's an extra step that makes most Chess960 positions illegal.

[jp]

This is just going in circles.

The rule about permanently losing castling rights is that the K or the relevant R have previously moved.

Your objection is just about the starting position. That is all.

You just have an emotional reaction against the particular castling generalization of chess960, as shown when you started calling it "retarded", etc., but apparently you don't want any castling (e.g. Chess480) at all.

[Ovyron]

Calling something retarded when it's retarded isn't an emotional reaction, I'm not even mad when I say it

This hasn't gone in circles because you have yet to understand what I'm saying, let me try again...

So there's this girl that knows how to play chess taking a walk in the park, and then she sees two guys playing chess. Or so, she thinks. The guy with the black pieces looks very bored, as if he had been waiting for a white move for a while. The guy playing white is pondering in deep meditation, with a pose that reminded her of the Thinker, with his hand in his mouth (not on the forehead!), breathing slowly.

She gets closer to the board, and starts examining the position. Black has launched an attack on white, and it seems very strong, she calculates every move that she can for white, but all seem hopeless. The best white can do is taking a black pawn with its white rook. Then the attack is over and the king is safe, but at what cost? White isn't getting any compensation for the rook, she doesn't know if white will do it, or if they'll resign, and she awaits patiently.

Then to her surprise, the white player moves his hand towards the king. But she had calculated all the white variations where the king is moved, and she has found it gets mated in all lines! Is white so weak that after all this time they don't see it? Why not resigning instead of playing to mate?

But then she's shocked to see that the white guy moves his king from the c1 square all the way to g1, and then grabs the h1 rook and moves it to f1!

"Obvious, wasn't it?" - says the black player who moves immediately.

The girl is ashamed that all her calculations were wrong. These guys are using chess pieces on a chess board to play a game that is not chess, and so she has no idea what is legal or not, and since she can no longer calculate what would happen she loses interest and goes away.

Now, jp, I beg you, can you get into her mindset? Forget that you are you, forget everything you know about chess, can you imagine a person that witnesses this scenario and thinks that those players aren't playing chess, because an illegal move was played, so the game being played is unknown, and who knows what other illegal moves are allowed?

Forget all this thread and forget my arguments or who am I and just answer the simple question, I think a yes or no would suffice.

[jp]

Calling something retarded when it's retarded isn't an emotional reaction, I'm not even mad when I say it

It's an emotional statement and certainly not an argument.

Do you have a positive emotional reaction to any castling rule (e.g. Chess480) with a non-traditional starting position?


Your girl-in-the-park argument is yet another bad argument, just like your Millennium-Bug argument. It's like saying you have taught a girl to count on her fingers. Can she make the leap to counting on to 11, 12, 13, ..., etc.? Can she generalize beyond counting on her fingers, or will she say "11 is an illegal number"?

Obviously your girl has to start watching from the start of the game, just as it's reasonable for an author to expect his readers to start reading from the start of his novel. Then she will realize something is different. She may then ask why it's different, etc.

[Ovyron]

Calling something retarded when it's retarded isn't an emotional reaction, I'm not even mad when I say it

It's an emotional statement and certainly not an argument.

I have to use some adjective to refer to it so that it's clear I'm not referring to traditional castling. It's your fault if the word "retarded" causes some emotions ON YOU and you project them into ME (I'm not feeling anything when using the word.) What about "phony castling"? - oh, but I don't know if you'd get emotional with the word "phony" too. So I'll let you choose the adjective to use for it, it just needs to convey "the person that came up with it wasn't very clever about it" castling.

When I make emotional statements I use words like "fuck" or "asshole", but I have gotten nowhere near that on this thread.

Obviously your girl has to start watching from the start of the game

Wait, what? Now whether something is chess or not depends on when you start watching? Requiring the girl to start watching from the very beginning is preposterous! The point is the potential to play an illegal move is there from the start, I got her watching at the most relevant moment to show the difference (that Chess960 is a variant and that the illegal move she witnessed didn't matter. It could have been the white player dropping a pawn back into the board like in crazyhouse, or an ArchBishop appearing as he moved a piece on the back rank like in Seirawan chess. It was just "the person that came up with it wasn't very clever about it" castling, but her reactions to all the others would have been the same, that's why FRC is on the same bag as them.)

Requesting me to change the story so it supports your argument instead of answering "yes" or "no" makes me suspect you've just been trolling me. You know the Chess960 positions that include "the person that came up with it wasn't very clever about it" castling aren't chess and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I have become your buffoon. And with this I'll raise my "I'm done with you, congrats on having the last word on the subject" count to 2.

[jp]

It's your fault if the word "retarded" causes some emotions ON YOU and you project them into ME (I'm not feeling anything when using the word.) What about "phony castling"?

The fault lies entirely with you, not with me. Words have meanings. Obviously, no correct meaning of that word makes any sense attached to this rule.

It's generalized castling (not unique). You still show no sign of understanding what a generalization is.
That's why your bogus drop-pieces-on-board argument doesn't even get off the ground. Dropping pieces hidden in your pocket on the board is not a generalization of any move or any rule in traditional chess. A generalization of castling must coincide with standard castling when the initial position coincides with the standard initial position.


Your girl-in-the-park argument makes no sense at all. What exactly are you trying to conclude from it? We know that anyone who joins a game of chess, whether traditional or Chess960, cannot be certain that they know what's possible if they do not know all the moves from the start. This is true of traditional chess. If she sees a K on e1, she does not know whether it can castle or not, because she'd need to know whether it and the R have moved. If your girl has learnt chess from someone sensible, that person would have told her that castling rights are permanently lost if the K or R have previously moved, and otherwise they are retained. It's simple. Chess castling has always been explained that way.


It's not a question of changing your story to suit me. The problem is that there is no analogy at all between your story and any claim you're trying to make. You are not thinking logically.