Forget about the Monopoly. I’m perplexed about this “2-rook rule in chess.” (1) I never heard of it. (2) It’s nothing like castling. (3) You cannot move even one rook ahead one square until the rook pawn on it has moved. And (4) Why would you want to anyway?
My Google foo only turned up this SDMB thread: the rest of the Internet seems ignorant of the two-rook rule. And, I agree with (4): why would you want to move your rooks one space forward? Castling is much more likely to be useful.
Yeah it seems like you would just be moving your rooks to a rank where they would be obstructed by your pawns.
In the article, it is part of a list of examples of “house rules,” where just about anything goes.
I think a more useful variant is allowing bishops to move into adjacent empty squares. This allows the bishops to play both colors and makes them closer in value to the rooks.
Any variant would be more useful than the rook one. There are many acknowledged variants, but I never heard of the rook one. Originally, you know, the Q was allowed to move only one square and there was no en passant rule.
A friend once told me that the way we play the game now, with the queen able to move anywhere a bishop or rook can move, was referred to as “the chess of the mad queen,” possibly in French, in the old days. Anyone else heard this?
I also have never heard of the two-rook rule. I did play a variant where you used only half the board (oriented narrow-wise, with two ranks of pawns in front, though I don’t remember how the pieces were arranged behind them). Another variation (we called it “take”) reversed the usual objective; you won by losing all your men. Losing your king didn’t end the game and, as in checkers, you had to capture if you had an opportunity.
Yes, I have to agree that the two rook variant as described seems like about the most useless option I’ve ever heard of. As others have said, you’d have to first prepare for it by advancing both rook pawns. And moving the two rooks ahead one square doesn’t put them in a very good position to do anything. So you’ll waste three moves accomplishing virtually nothing.
Correcting my prior post, originally all pawn moves were one square forward. After giving the pawn on its initial square the option of moving two squares, the * en passant * rule was made, for obvious reasons. In addition, when a pawn reached the eighth rank, you did not have an option what piece to replace it with. You had to choose a piece already captured.
Only one square diagonally. Actually, the story of how the queen came to have her current move (and be called queen instead of minister, as she originally was) is a rather fascinating one, involving medieval queens (as in royalty), courtly romance, and the Virgin Mary, and is told in a book I read recently called Birth of the Chess Queen by Marilyn Yalom.
Yes - Italian, not French.
I’ve heard of a game played on a 16 x 4 board, with BQKB on the back rank, RNNR in front, and then a double row of pawns. The other version you refer is on Wikipedia as Antichess, though I know it as “Losing Chess” - it’s a fun game.
In shogi, Japanese chess, Bishops promote to Dragon-horses with exactly this power. (Rooks promote to Dragon-kings, having the counterpart move - unlimited orthogonal, or one square diagonal.)
We used to play that occasionally in my old chess club. We also played “sniper chess”. The rules of that were you moved all the pieces normally but you didn’t move your piece to capture an opposing piece. If you had a piece that was in a position to take another piece under the normal rules, you made your move by telling your opponent you were taking that piece. But your piece stayed in its original square - captures were in effect made at a distance. Interesting game that threw off a lot of normal defensive strategy - your pieces couldn’t defend each other. It also made your pawn structure different because pawns would never change their column.