11 Feb 09
Until 1553 A D there was a little used move which allowed a Queen to mount a Kings Knight and move in a diagonal zig-zag of five squares subject to no Bishops being on board,however that same year Mary Tudor became Queen of England and declared her disapproval. Not wishing to become the subject of Marys anger,thereafter nobody dared to use this move until it became all but forgotten about ,and sadly has never been used since[subject source-- Jesteryesterchess.com]😀
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by RECUVICBut as far I am concerned there are is not the slightst historical find and evidence regarding the so called "queen's castling".
Until 1553 A D there was a little used move which allowed a Queen to mount a Kings Knight and move in a diagonal zig-zag of five squares subject to no Bishops being on board,however that same year Mary Tudor became Queen of England and declared her disapproval. Not wishing to become the subject of Marys anger,thereafter nobody dared to use this move until it ...[text shortened]... t forgotten about ,and sadly has never been used since[subject source-- Jesteryesterchess.com]😀
On the cintrary, according to Reuerendissimo Padre Frate Giacobo da Cesole's notorious "Game of Chess" (1474), we know that about 13th century the King that had not yet moved from e1 was allowed to be moved one or two squares at once to any direction (thus he could land too on c1, c2, c3, d3, e3, f3, g3, g2 and g1). Therefore it is more accurate to suppose that the Kings' castling was evolved from a combination of this move at the same time with the move of the Rook.
Yet I have to admit that, although this book is a monument in the history of the royal game, it was never written in order to teach the people chess or to clarify its rules. Cesole wanted to win men to a
sober life and to the due performance of individual and social duties according with his religion and his beliefs, thus he invoked alike
the reproofs of the fathers of the Church, the history and legend of
chroniclers, pagan and Christian, and the words of prophets and poets.
The book is considered a memorial of the literature and learning of the middle ages, for it offers the literary taste and social ideal of the
13th, 14th and 15th centuries.
Anybody can be dissatisfied with Cesole's ideals, sure thing; however, due to given spirit of Cesole, it seems to me that he could hardly ignore a rule of great importance (the supposed Queen's castling) for the strongest piece of the royal game😵
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by RECUVICI mistakenly pressed the "post" and my English over here is too bad even for my personal taste🙂 Kindly please excuse me for the inconvenience, I come again:
Until 1553 A D there was a little used move which allowed a Queen to mount a Kings Knight and move in a diagonal zig-zag of five squares subject to no Bishops being on board,however that same year Mary Tudor became Queen of England and declared her disapproval. Not wishing to become the subject of Marys anger,thereafter nobody dared to use this move until it ...[text shortened]... t forgotten about ,and sadly has never been used since[subject source-- Jesteryesterchess.com]😀
As far I am concerned there is not the slightest historical find and evidence regarding the so called "Queen's castling".
On the contrary, according to Reuerendissimo Padre Frate Giacobo da Cesole's notorious "Game of Chess" (1474), we know that about 13th century the King who had not yet moved from e1 was allowed to be moved one or two squares at once to any direction (thus he could land too on c1, c2, c3, d3, e3, f3, g3, g2 and g1). Therefore it is more accurate to suppose that the Kings' castling was evolved from a combination of this move and of the move of the Rook.
Yet I have to admit that, although this book is a monument in the history of the royal game, it was never written in order to teach the people chess or to clarify its rules. Cesole wanted to win men to a sober life and to the due performance of individual and social duties according with his religion and his beliefs, thus he invoked alike
the reproofs of the fathers of the Church, the history and legend of
chroniclers, pagan and Christian, and the words of prophets and poets.
The book is considered a memorial of the literature and learning of the middle ages, for it offers the literary taste and social ideal of the
13th, 14th and 15th centuries.
Anybody can be dissatisfied with Cesole's ideals, sure thing; however, due to the given spirit of Cesole, it seems to me that he could hardly ignore a rule of great importance (the supposed Queen's castling) related with the strongest piece of the royal game😵
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by davesgambitAccording to Green Pawn:
Help. A mate of mine has claimed that an ancient rule existed which meant you can castle your queen. According to him this is still a valid rule. This led to a heated debate and a £10 bet.
Anyone shed any light for me?
On the 15th move if the Queen has not moved and Queens Rook has
not moved then you may caastle the Queen.
The Rook lands on c1 and the Queen on b1.
This dates back to an old French move invented by King Louis the 15th.
(hence the 15th move).
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by ChessAddictionSure thing😵
According to Green Pawn:
On the 15th move if the Queen has not moved and Queens Rook has
not moved then you may caastle the Queen.
The Rook lands on c1 and the Queen on b1.
This dates back to an old French move invented by King Louis the 15th.
(hence the 15th move).
12 Feb 09
Certainly with chess as it was played in Portugal in the late 13 th century, there was no King,only a prince two court fools and a princess whos' father had once been a knight. The fools were allowed to leap on top of the princess or simply move round her a couple of squares at a time,but the precise details have now been lost with the passage of time. At the same time there were only 6 pawns who were represented by poor people who had been in prison for several years, and were worth less than modern chess pawns. Many countries played their own local and national variations of chess at the same time.-----😀
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by RECUVICAnd people think en passant is tricky 🙄
Certainly with chess as it was played in Portugal in the late 13 th century, there was no King,only a prince two court fools and a princess whos' father had once been a knight. The fools were allowed to leap on top of the princess or simply move round her a couple of squares at a time,but the precise details have now been lost with the passage of time. At t ...[text shortened]... Many countries played their own local and national variations of chess at the same time.-----😀
13 Feb 09
Originally posted by davesgambitChrist, not this crap again.
Help. A mate of mine has claimed that an ancient rule existed which meant you can castle your queen. According to him this is still a valid rule. This led to a heated debate and a £10 bet.
Anyone shed any light for me?