Two handed castling

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Reg Clucas
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm

Two handed castling

Post by Reg Clucas » Thu May 23, 2019 4:20 pm

Of course we all know, or should know, that castling must be performed with one hand only, with the King being moved first. Two handed castling is an illegal move (rule 7.5.4) and is penalised accordingly.

But does the move still stand? In a recent conversation someone claimed that an arbiter had told him that two handed castling should result in the player being forced to make a Rook move. This seems wrong to me - the relevant rules are -
4.4 If a player having the move:
4.4.1 touches his king and a rook he must castle on that side if it is legal to do so
4.4.2 deliberately touches a rook and then his king he is not allowed to castle on that side on that move and the situation shall be governed by Article 4.3.1
From this I infer that only if the player has touched the Rook first is he compelled to make a Rook move. If the King is touched first, or it cannot be determined which piece was touched first, then the castling move, although performed illegally, must stand.

Is this correct?

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3931
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Two handed castling

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Thu May 23, 2019 4:31 pm

It is, yes.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Two handed castling

Post by Roger Lancaster » Thu May 23, 2019 6:12 pm

That's straightforward but how about this one? A player castles two-handedly but, before pressing his clock to complete the move, realises it was illegal (but only by reason of the two hands) and decides to correct it. In the situation where he touched both pieces simultaneously, or the arbiter cannot decide which he touched first, which piece would he be required to move? Or would he even be allowed the opportunity to castle in the correct manner?

Reg Clucas
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: Two handed castling

Post by Reg Clucas » Thu May 23, 2019 7:04 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 6:12 pm
That's straightforward but how about this one? A player castles two-handedly but, before pressing his clock to complete the move, realises it was illegal (but only by reason of the two hands) and decides to correct it. In the situation where he touched both pieces simultaneously, or the arbiter cannot decide which he touched first, which piece would he be required to move? Or would he even be allowed the opportunity to castle in the correct manner?
That would appear to be covered by 4.4.1.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3931
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Two handed castling

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Thu May 23, 2019 7:12 pm

If I'm an arbiter observing this, then my ruling will be:

(a) the player must castle on the side indicated
(b) the player has almost certainly wasted so much time compared with castling in a legal manner that no advantage can possibly have been gained, and there's no reason to penalize any further

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3464
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Two handed castling

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu May 23, 2019 8:06 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 7:12 pm
If I'm an arbiter observing this, then my ruling will be:

(a) the player must castle on the side indicated
(b) the player has almost certainly wasted so much time compared with castling in a legal manner that no advantage can possibly have been gained, and there's no reason to penalize any further
The opponent may have been distracted by the offender's antics. In a Blitz game in particular, I would be inclined still to give him his extra one minute.

AustinElliott
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: North of England
Contact:

Re: Two handed castling

Post by AustinElliott » Thu May 23, 2019 8:12 pm

I was recently sat next to a game where a player picked up King and Rook (simultaneously) two-handed intending to castle, upon which his opponent correctly said this was an illegal move... but then insisted this meant the attempted-castle-r had to make a non-castling King move. The opponent, looking a touch bewildered, accepted this. In the position on the board the King move played was probably a better move than O-O, but the King mover was clearly upset. What I'm getting from Jack's comment above is that this shouldn't have happened, and the attempted castler should have been allowed to play O-O.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3931
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Two handed castling

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Thu May 23, 2019 8:25 pm

AustinElliott wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 8:12 pm
What I'm getting from Jack's comment above is that this shouldn't have happened, and the attempted castler should have been allowed to play O-O.
Stronger than that. He's required to play O-O, because he's touched both the king and the rook.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2129
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Two handed castling

Post by Ian Thompson » Thu May 23, 2019 9:00 pm

AustinElliott wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 8:12 pm
I was recently sat next to a game where a player picked up King and Rook (simultaneously) two-handed intending to castle, upon which his opponent correctly said this was an illegal move...
That sounds to me like the opponent objected prematurely. If the player had the king in one hand and the rook in the other hand he hadn't castled illegally yet, so he hadn't broken that rule. Although perhaps a bit unlikely, if he were to put the rook back down on its original square and then complete castling properly, just using the hand he picked the king up with, he never would have broken the one-hand only rule.

E Michael White
Posts: 1335
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Two handed castling

Post by E Michael White » Thu May 23, 2019 9:24 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 8:06 pm
IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 7:12 pm
If I'm an arbiter observing this, then my ruling will be:

(a) the player must castle on the side indicated
(b) the player has almost certainly wasted so much time compared with castling in a legal manner that no advantage can possibly have been gained, and there's no reason to penalize any further
The opponent may have been distracted by the offender's antics. In a Blitz game in particular, I would be inclined still to give him his extra one minute.
The opponent is always entitled to the extra time; 7.5.4 does not give the arbiter discretion. The word "shall" ensures that. However I think Jack meant no further penalty.
FIDE 7.5.4 wrote: If a player uses two hands to make a single move (for example in case of castling, capturing or promotion) and pressed the clock, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.
However there is a twist here in that in Roger's example the player does not press the clock.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Two handed castling

Post by Roger Lancaster » Thu May 23, 2019 9:39 pm

Yes, 7.5.4 appears not to apply for the reasons given by E Michael White. The inference I draw from 7.5.4 is that, for two-handed castling to be considered an illegal move, the clock has to be pressed - the same requirement as for other potentially illegal moves. If that's so then, apart possibly from annoying or distracting his opponent, I'd submit the player has done nothing wrong and thus no penalty should apply. However, I'm also grateful to Reg Clucas who points to 4.4.1 which suggests that - in the circumstances I described - the arbiter has to insist on legal castling. On the same side of the board, of course. Am I wrong?

E Michael White
Posts: 1335
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Two handed castling

Post by E Michael White » Thu May 23, 2019 9:55 pm

Yes, but there is quagmire here.

If the player uses two hands and plays the pieces to the correct squares he has made the castling move by illegal means.

To avoid it becoming illegal he cannot press the clock. Neither can he take it back as he has made a legal move by illegal means.

A simple tidy up of the written law would fix it.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1811
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Two handed castling

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu May 23, 2019 10:01 pm

Can't see why anyone should bother creating a fuss about this, so, Jack, here's a picture of an angel on a pin:

Image

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Two handed castling

Post by Roger Lancaster » Thu May 23, 2019 10:08 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 10:01 pm
Can't see why anyone should bother creating a fuss about this, so, Jack, here's a picture of an angel on a pin:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SZ2BoIIVTV4/V ... EB%2B3.jpg[/img]
No fuss, we're just discussing one small aspect the Laws of Chess, while accepting that it won't be of interest to everyone.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Two handed castling

Post by NickFaulks » Thu May 23, 2019 10:13 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 10:01 pm
Can't see why anyone should bother creating a fuss about this
Perhaps not, but it seems that somebody did, which is why the thread started.

Post Reply