Thought provoking question

@WorldRenownPatzer said in #4:
> How about this creative idea. Allow castling, but also the rook to go anywhere along the back rank instead of f1 or d1. So in this illustration, there are no other pieces in between d1 and f1. So, white could go to f1 as usual, or it could go to e1 or d1.

I believe that something similar (Rook to e1 or f1, and king to g1 or h1) was once a move in about 18th-19th century chess before it was removed and replaced by current rules. Maybe they'll add it back in Chess 2.

Source: Vukovic in his long rambling intro to Chapter 3 in Art of Attack.

I too would choose the not-castling option: I leave my King usually in the center and don't encage the Rook as my Opponent does, as I develop the Rook (too) early. Besides, the castling move doesn't build a castle, so that's something in case that bugs you. ;)

Having given this question all due consideration, I would make the path of Mr. Rook shorter. I've often found in my own games that as the rooks wander too far from home, they become very easy to misplace, often travelling for days in search of a way home. Having an unruly rook that is limited to 4 squares of movement is akin to a backpack leash on a rambunctious child; it is quite simply common sense.

@TheCheesemate said in #13:
> Having an unruly rook that is limited to 4 squares of movement is akin to a backpack leash on a rambunctious child; it is quite simply common sense.

Fischer had a bishop like that. Little brat.

Can I still castle manually?
In that case I choose not being able to castle normally.

If I'm not allowed to castle either way: I choose the weird rooks.