Please clarify castling for me?
Is it only possible when the King and Rook are on the correct squares?
Chess960 Explained!
Sort:
rooperi wrote:
Please clarify castling for me?
Is it only possible when the King and Rook are on the correct squares?
No, castling is possible if three conditions are met. First is "unmoved:" neither the king nor the rook can have moved. Second is "unattacked:" the king may not castle out of, through, or into check. Third is "unimpeded:" all the squares the king and the rook move through (and into) must be empty of other pieces (besides the king and the rook).
It's all explained in the wikipedia article linked to in the first post of this thread.
Yeah, its good fun, I'm finding my feet now. After turning at a low 869 rating, I'm back to 4 figures and climbing. I wonder whether there are setups which have forced wins for White from move 1?
im still confused....
In high school, we set it up this way:
1) Set the pawns up.
2) Black picks the first piece's position (because white gets to move first)
3) White mirrors black's placement and chooses the second piece.
ect.
And now you don't need 960-sided dice or anything, just you and a friend.
and a chess board.
Bajoran_Moon wrote:
scarjo wrote:
I think it's nice for a change. The only annoying thing can be to get your bishops developed.
Yes, after only playing part of two games, I can see that is problematic. I also gather that all of the old rules (avoid knights on the rim, don't bring Queen out early, castle a.s.a.p., etc) may not necessarily hold the same weight as in standard chess. Already I have seen (mostly in my opponent's stronger play, not only in my own) that an early Queen development, for instance, can be beneficial, especially as it can help tie down your opponent's pieces (bishops esp) to their back rank... and depending on where the knights are at the initial set up, developing a knight on the rim may well be the right move.... I'm finding the interplay between following all the old rules of thumb and needing to be creative and open very entertaining!
you make no sense
james12345678 wrote:
Bajoran_Moon wrote:
scarjo wrote:
I think it's nice for a change. The only annoying thing can be to get your bishops developed.
Yes, after only playing part of two games, I can see that is problematic. I also gather that all of the old rules (avoid knights on the rim, don't bring Queen out early, castle a.s.a.p., etc) may not necessarily hold the same weight as in standard chess. Already I have seen (mostly in my opponent's stronger play, not only in my own) that an early Queen development, for instance, can be beneficial, especially as it can help tie down your opponent's pieces (bishops esp) to their back rank... and depending on where the knights are at the initial set up, developing a knight on the rim may well be the right move.... I'm finding the interplay between following all the old rules of thumb and needing to be creative and open very entertaining!
you make no sense
Made sense to me
for the most part I think bringing out one's queen early is still a bad idea.
I don't like the castling rules in Chess960. I invented a different variant just to simplify the castling rules. Everything else is the same.
... 960 castling is virtually the same as standard castling. What's not to like?
the only thing that excites me is that it casts a level playing field in the opening. both players are on their own since standard opening repertoires are useless here
slack wrote:
... 960 castling is virtually the same as standard castling. What's not to like?
Well, actually it isn't.
Quoting FIDE Laws of Chess
...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.
That, of course, is not how it's done in Chess960. Nor is it how most people who are first introduced to Chess960 expect it to be done...
Chess480's rule for castling in rather simple.
...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. If the King can not move two squares because the Rook is on the edge of the board, then the King and Rook exchange places.
What I meant is the king & rook land on the same squares after castling, regardless of position, and all of the basic rules apply, like not moving through check.
The castling rules for 480 are actually more complicated than for standard or 960 chess because the castled king could land on any square in the back row, depending on rook placement.
slack wrote:
The castling rules for 480 are actually more complicated than for standard or 960 chess because the castled king could land on any square in the back row, depending on rook placement.
I don't wish to get into a symantics argument about "complication", but the majority of the rules for Chess960 involve how to castle. This is, IMHO, too complicated. I think very few people learn how to castle by memorizing the columns.
The idea for Chess480 was to simplify Castling and I think it does that by useing the same rules that apply to FIDE Standard Chess.
Note that I'm talking about the rules, not the tactical situations which may or may not be more complicated in Chess480 due to King placement after Castling.
neoliminal wrote:
I don't wish to get into a symantics argument about "complication", but the majority of the rules for Chess960 involve how to castle. This is, IMHO, too complicated. I think very few people learn how to castle by memorizing the columns.
The idea for Chess480 was to simplify Castling and I think it does that by useing the same rules that apply to FIDE Standard Chess.
Oh, give me a break, neo. Most of the rules on castling in FRC are the same as the rules in Chess. Beyond that it's just "If you are castling a-side, the king goes to b1 and the rook to c1, otherwise the king goes to c1 and the rook to d1." Compared to "Move the king two toward the rook and put the rook on the other side of the king. If this would move the king off the board, switch the rook and the king instead."
And frankly, both of those rules are the same as castling in Chess. It's just different interpretations of what those rules are.
ichabod801: I simply don't think I can call a move castling if the King fails to move. I've never seen rules for chess that name the squares the pieces end up on, but rather I've always seen it written as the King moves two spaces.
This is partcially due to the origins of Castling, called "the King's Leap". The King's first move was one where he could move two spaces in any direction, leaping as he moved. It became a popular to move the Rook next to the King and then leap it on the next turn. As with the change allowing for pawns to move two spaces on the first move, these moves were combined to speed chess up. The other options for King's Leap were removed.
But I digress. Play whichever you enjoy. My goal was to make it easier for new players to learn to play. Chess960's castling rules are confusing to both Chess and Chess960 newbies. Chess480 is easier to learn because the rules (for castling) are essentially the same as you'd read in any version of stanard chess you might find.
{shrug}
Sep 5, 2009
0
#79
I didn't get the castling(I understand where the pieces go. BUt, I tried to castle in a game and it wouldn't let me.)
Is it just all the same rules as in regular chess for castling(can't be in check, pieces out of the way etc)?
They're with the other open seeks. If you don't see anything labelled as 960, then there aren't any open 960 seeks.