English Chess Forum

HI All,

I like the rule that in Queen Rook odds the odds giver can 0-0-0 provided nothing
has landed on a1 (or a8 if the odds giver was Black). I'll go with that, Thanks.

Geoff, thanks, 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)

In his Chess Praxis rules, the way Staunton worded his discussion of castling made no mention of odds play.
The British Chess Association rules adopted at the Congress of 1862 deliberately varied from his rules in some respects.

On pages lxx-lxxi of the Congress book in the paragraph on castling the wording was as follows:

"In castling, the player shall move King and Rook simultaneously or shall touch the King first. If he touch the Rook first, he must not quit it before having touched the King; or his opponent may claim the move of the Rook as a complete move. When the odds of a Rook or both Rooks are given, the player giving the odds shall be allowed to move his King as in castling, and as though the Rooks were on the board."

There is no mention of this not being possible if the square a1 is occupied by another piece.
So under that code of laws, queenside "castling" is legal (Ke1-c1) and the problem that began this thread is sound.

Tim Harding wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:30 am

In his Chess Praxis rules, the way Staunton worded his discussion of castling made no mention of odds play.
The British Chess Association rules adopted at the Congress of 1862 deliberately varied from his rules in some respects.

On pages lxx-lxxi of the Congress book in the paragraph on castling the wording was as follows:

"In castling, the player shall move King and Rook simultaneously or shall touch the King first. If he touch the Rook first, he must not quit it before having touched the King; or his opponent may claim the move of the Rook as a complete move. When the odds of a Rook or both Rooks are given, the player giving the odds shall be allowed to move his King as in castling, and as though the Rooks were on the board."

There is no mention of this not being possible if the square a1 is occupied by another piece.
So under that code of laws, queenside "castling" is legal (Ke1-c1) and the problem that began this thread is sound.

Doesn't the clause "and as though the Rooks were on the Board" imply that a1 etc must be vacant?

HI,

There is:

From Howard Staunton's Chess Player's Handbook:

Rules For Playing The Game At Odds.

"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."

http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/odds-giving.html

I cannot fathom why anybody is discussing a chess variant they have probably never played, or seen played.

When I gave odds of the Ra1 about 50 years ago; the a2 pawn was placed on a3. I don't remember whether 0-0-0 with a phantom rook was allowed. This complied with good practice in New York where games were sometimes played at odds for money.

The one game I remember in England was odds of the Ra1 with the pawn f7 removed. The game was
1 e4 e5 2 Wh5+ resigns.

Also see -

Chess notes Edward Winter

6029. Castling with a phantom rook

... No concensus was ever reached, as is shown by the selection of British quotes below...


http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/wint ... _C.N._5020

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:59 pm

I cannot fathom why anybody is discussing a chess variant they have probably never played, or seen played

My local league still had an odds knockout competition when I started chess in the 1980s.

Strongest players were given a 1, weakest 5.

Players who rated one higher had Black, conceding the f7 pawn and move.

Two higher, White without the QN.

Three higher, White without QR (and yes, I think castling that side was permitted)

The maximum four difference (ie 1 v 5) meant White played without their Q.

From recollection, some managed to win from a Rook down - but the 1 against 5 games only ever had one result.

Hi Stewart,

"I cannot fathom why anybody is discussing a chess variant they have probably never played, or seen played."

It was based around the legality of the problem from Wenman. White to play and mate in two.

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

It appears we are coming around to agreeing one can 0-0-0 provided nothing has landed on a1 which excercises the ghost of a Rook on a1.

Never seen a Rook odds game but have played over a number from Morphy. He (or anybody else) will not have 0-0-0 on a internet
site as this would halt the PGN viewer, I'll check my Sergeant book on Morphy to see if one is in there.

I did test WinBoard 4.2.3 as it is a more flexible viewer. Not so picky when setting up illegal positions or allowing illegal moves.

Here:

rnbq1rk1/ppp2ppp/3ppn2/8/1b1PP3/2N2Q2/PPPB1PPP/4KBNR w K - 0 6

When I played Ke1-Kc1 it gave me this...

rnbq1rk1/ppp2ppp/3ppn2/8/1b1PP3/2N2Q2/PPPB1PPP/2KR1BNR b - - 0 6

The Rook has been resurrected..A Lazarus Rook!

I’m trying to make a little puzzle ...

White is a playing at odds of queen’s rook. The following position is reached:

White - king on e1, pawn on a3.
Black - king on c3, pawn on b4.

Black plays 1...b4-b3. Is this a) a winning move, b) a terrible blunder allowing white to draw, or c) ... ?

[FEN "8/8/8/8/1p6/P1k5/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]
Black plays b3.

Hello Peter

I think I get this.

Without wanting to spoil the puzzle for others I think it depends on which rook odds laws are being observed and backtracking the moves.

This could then be a win for Black or a draw.

Michael - congratulations! I’m impressed ...

Peter Sowray wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:17 am

Michael - congratulations! I’m impressed ...

I have now got it too, although I wouldn't have done without EMW's hint.

I don't think I get it and the things that are also puzzling me in addition to the possible postulated outcomes, Peter, Michael and David, following the discussion in this castle of Chandler's confounded construction are -

a). Has that W king been observed to be on e1 throughout?

b). Has any piece been observed to occupy a1, or perhaps h1, at any point?

c). Why isn't the W-pawn already on a4?

d). Can "some great player" restore a "Lazarus rook" to life for just one move and capture if B plays 1... bxa3?

e). Do I accept the premise - of csstleless castling?

Assuming the answers are - a). Not likely; b). Quite possibly; c). Don't know, but it could be; d). Don't believe in miracles; e). Not on your Nelly... then the castle disappears into thin air, which is where it, and its ghost, should firmly rest for the whole duration of a game at rook odds.

Hi,

In this game Black gave the odds of the f7 pawn.

In this position (White to play)

5bkr/6p1/6P1/6N1/8/8/8/6K1 w - - 0 1

White took the ghost of the f-pawn 1.gxf7 mate.

No Morphy game with QR odds where he 0-0-0. Is there a game out there anywhere with 0-0-0 at QR odds.