Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4964
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:33 am

Alex McFarlane wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:14 am
In answer to Nick
Thanks, Alex. It wasn't there yesterday evening, but I should have rechecked before posting.

Craig Pritchett
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 pm

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by Craig Pritchett » Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:57 am

This is indeed interesting in a variety of ways that flag up implications for the laws of the game … in the modern age!

My doubt is about the modern-day validity of a rule which appears to legalise castling on the opposite side in the event of having illegally castled on the other (4.4. as quoted above a few posts!?) which seems to me to be extraordinarily lenient to the player who commits illegal castling.

Say in a momentary lapse a top player castled illegally (at classical time rates) as in the illustrated game, e.g. in the British championship, and could get away with a game-saving castling on the other side. I think he or she would at the very least feel utterly shame-faced and feel deep-down that they have been extremely lucky to have got away with this.

Perhaps the real problem lies in the fact that an illegal move is merely 'punishable' by moving the offending piece legally and not by a heavy penalty, say by a 10 minute time addition to the opponent's clock (certainly more than a mere 2 minutes). Playing illegal moves, including illegal castling, is in reality a pretty crass contravention of the laws. This seems to me to be much more in accord with the spirit of the modern game.

I also feel extremely uncomfortable about the apparently still existing (ancient, outmoded … anachronistic!?) assessment of castling as a 'king move', as when you think about it there's another piece, a rook, involved, so that plainly raises questions that are more than simply esoteric (and surely reflects very 'old-style' chess thinking). In any change to rule 4.4., I'd certainly consider expressly forbidding castling on the other side, if legal, in the event of illegal castling.

Over to the rules commission (again)!?

NickFaulks
Posts: 4964
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:07 am

Craig Pritchett wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:57 am
Perhaps the real problem lies in the fact that an illegal move is merely 'punishable' by moving the offending piece legally and not by a heavy penalty
I, like just about every beginner to the game, have never understood why the penalty for voluntarily moving your king into ( or through ) check should not be that it gets taken and you've lost.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by Stewart Reuben » Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:38 pm

Indeed the FA title. I hope it will shortly be displayed on the Arbiters Commission website, with the other 18 people who passed the exam, 8 of whom secured only a norm.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by Stewart Reuben » Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:58 pm

Craig >Perhaps the real problem lies in the fact that an illegal move is merely 'punishable' by moving the offending piece legally and not by a heavy penalty, say by a 10 minute time addition to the opponent's clock (certainly more than a mere 2 minutes).,

The RC did discuss, some years ago, the idea that illegal moves should lose. That was rejected. I favoured the one size fits all, of a 2 minute penalty, for all transgressions, on the basis this was easier for the arbiter to remember.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17978
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:51 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:58 pm
The RC did discuss, some years ago, the idea that illegal moves should lose. That was rejected.
Did it not briefly wander into the Laws? Thus causing trouble to the organisers of junior events, who would have preferred more latitude.

But aren't illegal moves now more wide-ranging, so that double handed castling is now defined as an illegal move?

Kevin O'Rourke
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:01 pm

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by Kevin O'Rourke » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:57 pm

Castling is a king move so castling other side is perfectly fine.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by Stewart Reuben » Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:02 pm

Roger
There was a period where the first illegal move lost in rapid play an blitz. The intention was that would come in for standardplay later. But it was very unpopular. So now they have standardised it at 2 illegal moves losing.
Indeed, unfortunately some actions are now characterised as if illegal moves, when what is meant is that they are punished in the same way as illegal moves.
e.g. pressing the clock without having made a move is clearly not an illegal move. It is what I like to refer to as an incorrect action. This has not gained support, yet.

Craig Pritchett
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 pm

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by Craig Pritchett » Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:11 pm

Stewart - I rather like your idea that all (illegal move!?) transgressions receive a 2 minute penalty in classical time-rated games … not least because as you suggest it is easy for arbiters (and I'd add players) to remember and in retrospect it's probably a reasonable enough penalty in most, if not all cases.

That leaves the Q whether castles should (still) be considered to be a 'king move' (as rule 4.4 seems to imply), as it plainly isn't. It involves two pieces and generally speaking two desirable aims: king into safety in a corner + rapid rook centralisation. Allowing 'legal castling' on the other side of the board (if available), following 'illegal castling' will often (I guess) be a transgressing player's 'best' alternative and raises the Q whether the illegally moved rook should be the piece 'forced' to move rather than the king.

Logically there seems no clear answer to this problem other than to cut what appears to be an entirely unavoidable Gordian knot that arises because castling is a uniquely two piece move … and the rule-makers have simply decided that the king must move.

I'm happy that the king should be the piece to move (although you could allow the transgressing player to choose whether to move the transgressing rook or king and I'd be happy with that too); but surely there is an argument that (if the king) it should have to make a true (one square) king move and not involve a third piece (the entirely 'innocent' rook now being 'forced' to castle that had not been illegally moved and played no part in the transgression)?

Also the final phrase in 4.4., to the effect that if the king has no legal move the transgressor may make any legal move may actually be illogical; since (especially if king and rook have been 'touched' at the same time), there surely seems no reason not to exclude any possible legal move by the transgressing rook (if the transgressing king can't move) before allowing the transgressor the privilege of selecting any other legal move. Should that be reconsidered?

Nick Grey
Posts: 1129
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by Nick Grey » Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:14 am

The rules - written by idiots - driven by morons?

Standard play 2 minute penalty & then loss is fine. County chess etc
I ought to add be published by organisers whether arbiter present or not - make an interesting addition to league chess, club chess.

We will then get down to lists of the worst offenders.

Very embarrassing I'll expect for a titled player or an arbiter in their own games.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by Stewart Reuben » Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:25 pm

Craig, it was Geurt Gijssen when chairman of the QC insisted that castling is a king move. The current situation flows from that and I think it unlikely that it will be changed in 2020. Your idea that 0-0 illegal, then a king move illegal, then moving the Rh1 to g1 or f1; alternatively
0-0-0 illegal, king move illegal, Ra1 to b1 or c1 is perfectly sound, but was not suggested when the matters was last considered.
Of course, if the king is in check and cannot move, then the only alternative is to capture the checking piece.

Nick >I ought to add be published by organisers whether arbiter present or not - make an interesting addition to league chess, club chess.<

Any decent set of local chess rules should include: The FIDE Laws of Chess apply except where amended hereunder.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by Geoff Chandler » Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:26 pm

Hello Again,

In this thread White castled illegally on move 14.

Today's cryptic crossword in the Metro. 14 Down(!)

'The Actors went in front and changed positions on board.' (7)

'Actors' (Cast) and 'in front' (led) = Castled.

---

Craig is making a valid point. In castling two pieces moved and if we assume the
Rook was the last piece touched, can Black not claim touch move on the h1 Rook?

Craig Pritchett
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 pm

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by Craig Pritchett » Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:39 pm

Stewart/Geoff

Just to tie up my thoughts on this: I'm quite happy with the current rule that requires a king move (only) on illegal castling. I think the rules should, however, spell out that this is based on a convention that in effect considers castling to be a king move (and not a uniquely dual king and rook move), if they don't already do that. This convention and rule has the not inconsiderable advantage of 'simplicity' and is I think a fair enough penalty for this, in fact, very rare contravention of the rules (at least in games played at classical chess rates).

I am, however, a bit surprised that no one on the rules commission apparently challenged the idea, when it was asserted as such by G. Gijssen (whose knowledge as an arbiter I greatly admire but disagree on this point), that castles is simply a 'king' move, as it patently isn't! But I can see some sort of ancient rationale for that thought and would agree that it still has a hold on many players, as the move emerged historically primarily as a concession to kings to get them into safety at the sides of boards, behind the flank pawns, as the quite separate rules that improved the range and mobility of some of the other pieces began to render remaining in the centre a much higher risk for kings than it had been previously.

Simply spell out the convention.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1787
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

Post by Michael Farthing » Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:49 pm

Laws of Chess

3.8 There are two different ways of moving the king:
3.8.1 by moving to an adjoining square
3.8.2 by ‘castling’. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed.

Post Reply