Illegal Castling into Legal Castling.

[Stewart Reuben]

The law regarding 3 fold occurrence of position also tackled this issue.
9.2.2.2 ,,, The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.
I disagreed, but lost the vote. e.g.
White Ke1 Rh1 neither has moved. Qd3. BLACK Ke4 Nf4. 1...Nxd3+ 2 Ke2 Nf4+3 Ke1 Nd3+. This is NOT the same position as before. But we can look into the future and see that, after a knight check life can never be the same concerning castling.
3

[Craig Pritchett]

As 3.8.2 (thanks, Michael) in fact already actually defines castling as a king and rook move (albeit 'requiring' the king to be moved before the rook), I guess that all I'd suggest is that 4.4 c (quoted very early in this thread) requires some further amplification.

As 4.4 c makes clear (in the context of a discussion of the application of rules in regard to illegal moves) that the king should be required to move somewhere else in the event of illegal castling, while the rook's involvement (per the definition of the dual piece nature of castling at 3.8.2), should not come into any debate on the matter, this suggests to me that the addition of a note of clarification at the end of 4.4. c to dispel all and any possible confusion would be helpful, along the lines: 'by convention and for the purposes of this rule, the rook's involvement in castling (per 3.8.2) is ignored'.

That'd do me. Somebody else can no doubt improve any final drafting … not really expecting any change, if any, soon, of course!

[Tim Harding]

.., after a knight check life can never be the same concerning castling.

It can if the check is dealt with by capturing the knight!

[Stewart Reuben]

Tim >It can if the check is dealt with by capturing the knight!<
If the knight is captured, it is no longer on the board. Life is not the same!

[Tim Harding]

You will be missed in Bled, Stewart. Too cold, I guess?

[Michael Farthing]

As 3.8.2 (thanks, Michael) in fact already actually defines castling as a king and rook move (albeit 'requiring' the king to be moved before the rook), I guess that all I'd suggest is that 4.4 c (quoted very early in this thread) requires some further amplification.

Craig, you have missed the essential words "counting as a single move of the king". The part that you refer to is merely a description of the physical process.

[Stewart Reuben]

Tim >You will be missed in Bled, Stewart. Too cold, I guess?<

Yesterday was very cold in London. But I was indeed put off by the weather forecast for Bled. A major point is that it will overlap with the World Championship in London - although it seems very unlikely I will have a role. A great pity that. I was hoping to complete the set of 4. Also I had a nasty fall in Georgia at the end of the event. I am still recovering. Bled is a beautiful place and I wish the event well.

[Craig Pritchett]

Thanks, Michael:

I did indeed rather miss the additional phrase in 3.8.2 re: castling - to the effect that castling is 'counted' as a move by the king (although I still find that a somewhat counter-intuitive notion, not least because most of us castle not just to play a desirable king move but also to get our rooks speedily centralised). Apologies! Oops!

That said, I'd still probably on balance prefer 4.4 c on illegal castling (that requires the offending king to move and ignores the offending rook) to perhaps gently remind the layperson that 'by convention, per 3.8.2, castling is considered in the rules as a move by the king' or something along those lines.

That would dispel all possible confusion at 4.4. c, though I would now have to agree that the two rules are actually in logical agreement and that I am purely advocating an additional point of clarity to underscore that logic ... so certainly no need for any urgent action.

Tim: see you, if not Stewart, in invigorating and no doubt quite sunny, if chilly Bled!

[Stefan Stern]

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.

His arbiter records report starts in June 2018. Only 4 months from zero to the FA title?

[James Plaskett]

There´s a famous game of Heidenfeld´s - visible at Tim Krabbé´s site - where he castled on BOTH wings!

In deference to comments made by several contributors to this thread, I once had published a letter in CHESS advocating that, in view especially of the reliance on opening theory in today´s game, amendments ought to be made to the castling rule.
I proposed castling out of check or through check or if the king had been moved before or if the rook had been moved before or even to h1 or b1 or a1 directly. (And it now occurs to me that to castle and "en route" have your king land on a square where an opponent´s piece lay and in the process "consume" that very piece might also be not inconsistent!?)
This met with some widespread approval and one bloke wrote in to say that both I and Fischer - with his random baseline variant - were arrogant GMs to be arguing for altering the rules of the game.
A piece was then drawn to my attention - perhaps by Harding himself - which pointed out that this would not be an amendment as "free castling" had already existed in the 19th century.
(Nothing new under the sun, eh?)
Lastly, I touched a rook in a winning position Vs Pritchett in the 1987 British...and then wanted to make the actual winning move.
"You TOUCHED it!", he rightfully protested.
I said that indeed I had…and played a non-winning move with that very piece.
Reuben watched the incident.