Women World Fischer Random Championship 2019 Next Month in USA

[jp]

But this isn't about starting positions, it's about illegal moves being allowed so it's no longer the original game.

You are just declaring illegal a castling rule you don't like. That's all. That's not an argument.

Obviously, people can and have proposed other castling rules or none at all.

You are of course entitled to your emotional response, but you keep denying that that's what it is, while demonstrating that it really is by calling things "retard", etc.

You then slink back to a variant of your bogus Millennium-Bug argument when you write "the mess that FRC currently is, where no chess engine can play them unless people beg the author".

[Ovyron]

You are just declaring illegal a castling rule you don't like.

No, it's illegal, try doing it (when the king or rooks aren't in the place where it's legal in chess) in a chess game and your opponent will complain. Try doing it in a chess tournament and the TD will kick you out. Try it in any chess GUI that enforces chess rules and it won't be accepted. Try it in any chess engine that enforces chess rules and you'll get back an error.

You can't argue that castling is legal in this chess position:



It may only be legal in Chess960, proving it's a different game.

[jp]

You are just declaring illegal a castling rule you don't like.

No, it's illegal, try doing it (when the king or rooks aren't in the place where it's legal in chess) in a chess game and your opponent will complain.

It's only illegal in a traditional chess game because the king has already moved.
We've said all this before... If the K and relevant R have not previously moved, they keep their castling rights.

You want a variant in which even if the K and R have not moved they are not allowed to castle. It's okay for you to want that variant, but bizarre that you keep insisting generalizations are "illegal".

Of course, the generalized game is different: it has a larger set of initial conditions.

[Ovyron]

Of course, the generalized game is different

And this is what I've been arguing all along! In fact, you can go back and read all my messages you disagree with, and switch "Chess960" or "FRC" with "generalized game", then we're saying the same thing.

This generalized game isn't chess, it doesn't matter if the kings or rooks have moved or not, King at c1 castling with a rook on h1 is an illegal chess move.

[jp]

Of course, the generalized game is different: it has a larger set of initial conditions.

And this is what I've been arguing all along!

No. It's difference lies entirely in the set of initial conditions! (And you conveniently snipped that part from the quote. I have restored it.) That's all. That's not what you are claiming. And then you use odd semantics like "is/isn't chess", "illegal", etc.

King at c1 castling with a rook on h1 is an illegal chess move.

In traditional chess, a K and R that have not previously moved can castle in the future. We all know that no one ever states or learns castling rules in terms of the starting squares. You wilfully are making the castling rules about the allowed starting positions of the K and R, and then you flip and claim your gripe is not about the initial conditions. It is about the initial conditions.

You also ignore that if you forbid moves that are allowed in the traditional game then that changes the game. You seem to think that something is only a change if it allows what was not allowed before. Your bogus argument for your belief was that there may be games where the allowed move was not played, but the point is that even in those games the players were allowed to play those moves and chose freely not to. That's entirely different from being forbidden from making the moves. Possible moves not played affect the whole shape of the game as much as moves that were played.

[Ovyron]

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.

[jp]

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.

A king on c1 is an invalid starting position in traditional chess. That's all.

That person who "knows chess" will know that the starting position does not have the king on c1.
That person will also know that castling rights are not lost if the king and rook do not move, but are lost if the king does move. If she sees the king not on its starting position, she knows it must have moved and therefore cannot castle. If she sees the king is on its starting position, she will have to ask for the previous moves in the game to find out whether it has moved or not, so seeing the king on e1 is not enough info for her, because that's not fundamentally what castling is about.

You are overly emotional about this, which makes you come up with irrational "arguments".
If you like a variant with no castling, then there's nothing to stop you liking that variant. The traditional game, though, does have castling. It's bizarre that you think removing rules makes no change to the game at all.

[Ovyron]

I'm not emotional about this, are you on MikeB's club with some copy of me in your head that is very emotional? I'm not

But this isn't part of the argument so you can count that you still have the last word on this subject.

[jp]

are you on MikeB's club with some copy of me in your head that is very emotional? I'm not

I was not aware you have some gripe with MikeB. What did he do? Point out that one of your arguments was bogus?

it doesn't matter if the kings or rooks have moved or not, King at c1 castling with a rook on h1 is an illegal chess move.

As usual, when you get into long debates, you start contradicting yourself.
Before you said this.

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.

Yes, correct! The difference is just the starting positions allowed.

[Ovyron]

I was not aware you have some gripe with MikeB. What did he do? Point out that one of your arguments was bogus?

He blocked me because I said that a human at the GM level couldn't get a 50% performance against Stockfish at 50K/sec, and asked me why was I so angry when I said it!

Figures that if you were him, and he was you, and you blocked me, I'd be telling him that you blocked me because I said a King on c1 castling with an h1 rook was illegal, and you told me I was very emotional when I said it!

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...