In Crazyhouse:
Captured pawn placed on the second rank can move just as any other initial pawns, and especially dropped rooks in the starting square is prohibited from castling.
As long as the King has not moved yet i don't see the reason for not being able to castle with dropped rooks.
This is not fair is it?
A pawn cannot possibly, in standard chess, move back to the second rank, so really I don't think you can say the situation of a pawn on the second rank for the second time in the game is something the rules cover. Do the rules say "a pawn can move two squares if it hasn't moved at all," or do they say, "a pawn can move two squares if it is on the second rank"? That's a serious question. It seems to me that to disallow a pawn from moving two squares on the second rank ruins the whole symmetry of the game.
A rook on the other hand, the rules do explicitly state that it can't have moved at all, because obviously the rook moving and then coming back to the square is actually possible. Taking away an opponent's ability to castle is at times an important part of chess strategy, and I don't think you should be able to regain that ability later. This is not really true of the pawn's second-rank privilege.
And perhaps above all that, I don't think the rules of standard chess are relevant, because this isn't standard chess. It's a variant with its own rules, and we're talking about a move that doesn't exist in standard chess. So clearly that cannot the basis for this discussion. What is "fair" then? It's all subjective. In my opinion, these two moves are not equivalent.
Pawn captured and dropped on the second rank do indeed have the same possibilities as the original piece. Hence likewise dropped rooks may castle just as the original rook could.
[Variant "Crazyhouse"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR/ w KQkq - 0 1"]
1. e4 Nh6 2. e5 f6 3. exf6 Nf5 4. fxg7 Ng3
5. gxh8=R Nxh1 6. Na3 Ng3 7. Ba6 Nf5 8. Nf3 Ng7
9. R@h1 Ne6 | 10. 0-0 although i can't castle for some strange reasons.
The "strange reason" is that the rook has made a move - being put on the board. If you ask me, it makes more sense to disallow dropped pawns to move two squares than to allow dropped rooks to castle.
Callidous, no. R@h1 means "rook is dropped on h1 from reserve.
I know what it means. It's still a move.
Dropping a piece is not the same as moving, technically speaking.
In my opinion R@h1 is comparable to promotion.
"The rook has not moved" so castling rights should be intact
But technically, the rook has moved. It's moved from wherever you captured it, to your pocket, to a corner.
http://bughousechess.wz.cz/CompleteBughouseChessRules.htm(1) Castling is illegal:
if the king has already moved, or
with a rook that has already moved, or
with dropped rook.
http://www.bughouse.info/academy/rules.html8. A pawn or rook dropped onto a square where it would be at the start of a game is considered to have the same move possibilities as the original piece. Hence from their starting position dropped Pawns may move two squares and subsequently be captured en passant. Likewise dropped rooks may castle just as the original Rook could.
Bughouse is identical with crazyhouse, beside two players only.
I can't find official rules of crazyhouse on google. Some allows castling with dropped rooks and some do not. The difference in gameplay is trivial, or it won't occur often. Nevertheless that shouldn't exclude the possibility.
@ Little_Bobby_Tables
I agree in all points, excellent answer!