I was just thinking about the castling rule and came up with this idea...why not allow the Queen to castle? After all the king is allowed to castle, why not the Queen? Wouldn’t allowing the Queen to castle open up new possibilities for opening theory?
queen to op
It might change opening theory! But I think the idea is that the king is not very mobile and needs to be protected. Its a way to develop the rook and protect the king.
I think castling the queen would be a slow and maybe counter productive move. It would tuck the queen away into a corner and substitute it with a less capable took!
I think castling the queen would be a slow and maybe counter productive move. It would tuck the queen away into a corner and substitute it with a less capable took!
Why restrict it to royalty? Be egalitarian and let any piece castle. (Not pawns, obviously. Can't have the working class getting any ideas.)
@mtxo said in #3:
> It might change opening theory! But I think the idea is that the king is not very mobile and needs to be protected. Its a way to develop the rook and protect the king.
>
> I think castling the queen would be a slow and maybe counter productive move. It would tuck the queen away into a corner and substitute it with a less capable took!
I have to add to that
When you're queen is tucked in a castle, there is no point in castling! The castle is supposed to protect the piece,but in this cast it traps it. the queen can just move across the board to escape threats
> It might change opening theory! But I think the idea is that the king is not very mobile and needs to be protected. Its a way to develop the rook and protect the king.
>
> I think castling the queen would be a slow and maybe counter productive move. It would tuck the queen away into a corner and substitute it with a less capable took!
I have to add to that
When you're queen is tucked in a castle, there is no point in castling! The castle is supposed to protect the piece,but in this cast it traps it. the queen can just move across the board to escape threats
I saw another topic similar to this a while ago.
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/what-if-the-queen-could-also-castle-like-the-king?page=1
There is almost no purpose for the queen to be able to castle. In a back file mostly covered with pawns, it is essentially just a rook. In addition, the whole reason why the queen is supposed to have so many squares is to attack. Hiding it away would worsen it.
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/what-if-the-queen-could-also-castle-like-the-king?page=1
There is almost no purpose for the queen to be able to castle. In a back file mostly covered with pawns, it is essentially just a rook. In addition, the whole reason why the queen is supposed to have so many squares is to attack. Hiding it away would worsen it.
As wat inkydarkbird said castling the queen would make it extremely hidden and useless on the board, only the king is needed to be hidden due to its vunlerability of moving only 1 square per turn
Do we checkmate Queen ? That we need to castle the Queen ?!
@AaryanSumra exactly my opinion but whats wrong with casltling the queen, you are also told not to bring out your queen early
@Nimvenkatesan said in #9:
> @AaryanSumra exactly my opinion but whats wrong with casltling the queen, you are also told not to bring out your queen early
Yeah. But still why to castle the queen. Queen is mostly used for attacking and defense, now if u will castle the queen it will be surrounded by others pieces ( like pawns) so how would u use it. And after developing the minor pieces we develop Rook and Queen.
> @AaryanSumra exactly my opinion but whats wrong with casltling the queen, you are also told not to bring out your queen early
Yeah. But still why to castle the queen. Queen is mostly used for attacking and defense, now if u will castle the queen it will be surrounded by others pieces ( like pawns) so how would u use it. And after developing the minor pieces we develop Rook and Queen.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.