English Chess Forum

HI,

A question has arisen after I posted on Red Hot Pawn a mate in two adding
the player of the White piece was a strong player and Black was a novice.

The diagram is not wrong, under certain conditions there is a mate in two.

8/8/8/2B5/2p5/1kp5/8/R3K3 w - - 0 1

The White player gave Rook odds and under Odds Rules White is allowed to 0-0-0.


8/8/8/2B5/2p5/1kp5/8/R1K5 w - - 0 1

1. 0-0-0 (without the a1 Rook which started the game on h1) and it's checkmate next move.

The debate is around the Rook on a1 Can White 0-0-0 if there is a piece on a1 (the ghost of Rook square.)

Finding games with 0-0-0 taking place in a Rook Odds game is nigh impossible
as every PGN I know off just won't allow 0-0-0 without a Rook on a1.

Reminds me of the only study I have composed: White to play and win.

The answer, as you may have guessed from Geoff Chandler's post, is that White was giving odds of queen's rook, so he now plays 1.Kc1 (ie castling long).

https://beauchess.blogspot.com/

Hi Geoff,

Please stop making things up.

I refer you and him, nice one Tim, to the heyday of the great odds-givers - from Philidor to Morphy...

In the giving of odds of rook (or knight) it was customary for them to have the white pieces and to remove the QR/Kt.

Philidor wrote, "... the king cannot castle when in check, nor... nor with a castle which has been removed..."

I think that still applies, and if K and or R have moved castling is no longer allowed - even if it looks as if it can be done.

According to the pre-eminent authority, Wikipedia, quoting Gerald Abrahams: "If a rook is given, the player giving the odds can still castle with the absent rook, moving only the king."

https://beauchess.blogspot.com/

Hi Justin,

I did check on the Queen Rook Odds rules before posting.

Thank Tim.

I had to check on the rules because I got the problem from here.



It's No 65 on page 39 and given Wenman's track record thought I'd better look it up.
It's just the fact there is a piece on a1 that brings the rule into question.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter47.html (C.N.5641) Where the above book and others are exposed.

So we have - Abrahams, Chandler, Spanton and Wenman - the modern odds revisionistas.

How many games at odds did/have they play/ed?

I'd rather be guided by the old masters and their rules on odds and I'll not be accepting rook odds from anyone who says, by the way, I can castle with no castle!

Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:25 pm

Hi Justin

???

Hi John (Justin will be watching)

This is the full quote John McKenna was citing from: "The king cannot castle when in check, nor after having been moved, nor if in passing, he were exposed to a check, nor with a castle which has been removed from its place: and he that castles when he should not, must play his castle touched or his king, at his own choice."
I am far from sure this refers to odds-giving - it seems more like a quaint way of referring to a rook which has moved.

https://beauchess.blogspot.com/

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:06 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:25 pm

Hi Justin

???

This thread is written at Justin odds; replies are possible even if he's not there.

Hi Michael,

I had Justin on my mind when I decided to post the Edward Winter link.
He would have enjoyed finding all the 'doublers' in the Wenman books
of is it just R.,D.K. he has his sights on. He will be along soon, I'll call him John.

"The king cannot castle when in check, nor after having been moved, nor if in passing, he were exposed to a check, nor with a castle which has been removed from its place: and he that castles when he should not, must play his castle touched or his king, at his own choice."

Having thought about this some more, I have realised "removed" is not a quaint way of saying moved; it is an efficient way of saying "moved or captured." Nothing to do with giving odds.

John McKenna wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:04 pm

In the giving of odds of rook (or knight) it was customary for them to have the white pieces and to remove the QR/Kt.

I seem to remember reading somewhere, a long time ago now, that the odds-giver also had the option of placing his a-pawn at a3 as part of the initial set-up. In effect, an extra move to start with.

Tim, I can't agree about the meaning of the words 'removed rook" because in the 18/19th c. published games at piece odds usually start with the instruction to "remove White's Q/QR/QKt."

Pieces which are there at the start and subsequently removed are 'captured' pieces.

I'll have to concede this though -

From Howard Staunton's Chess Player's Handbook:

IV. When a player gives the odds of a Rook he may move his King as though to castle with the Rook given, provided the square of the missing Rook has been unoccupied throughout the game, and provided the ordinary conditions as to squares and the King are complied with.

Geoff please note - "... provided the square of the missing rook has been unoccupied throughout..."

And, as John C states above, Pa3 was sometimes thrown in before the game commenced, but I'd not want to.concede that either if receiving odds of QR.

Believe it or not -

The rule which obtains respecting castling with the Queen's Rook, when those odds are given, appears to have been provised in a similar way.

Some great player found it convenient to castle on the Queen's side and did so insisting on his right to castle without a castle!

Well, when his weaker opponent became strong enough he castled in the same way until, at length, the absurdity became admitted as a settled law of the game. (Howard Staunton - The Chess Player's Chronicle, Vol. I)