This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chess High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The page now has the sidebar on top of the diagrams. It didn't before. Can you fix it? -phma

I don't understand. Do you mean that the large bold "Castling (chess)" is above the diagrams? But I think it was above before I reformatted the table. Looking at previous versions shows it in the same position. --Fritzlein

Is the OOO notation the same in both types of chess notation?

Basically, yes, although in some very old game scores you find it spelled out in words ("Castles Q-Side"). --Camembert

In the line about it being allowed to castle if the rook is under attack, should the second part be "or move through an attacked square"? Rmhermen 17:07 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. --Fritzlein 19:23 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nunh-huh informs me that I am wrong to judge that "castle" is an incorrect term to use to refer to the rook. Therefore, I am putting his conclusion to the test -- if, as he claims, "castle" is no more incorrect or unacceptable than "rook", then replacing all the occurrences of "rook" with "castle" in this article should meet with no objections. Since I've changed all the terms at once, the terminology remains consistent throughout the article. It's no different than if I changed all occurences of the word "color" to "colour", or "quarter-note" to "crotchet". Anyone who objects to these changes has no right to change back, and if you think so, register your complaints elsewhere. Revolver 04:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course your little "experiment" will be reverted. I have never suggested that you replace anything: what I suggested (at Rook (chess)) is that you not label the use of "castle" as incorrect, since this use is found in every reasonably complete English language dictionary. You would be similarly taken to task, one hopes, if you were to opine that either "color" or "colour" is incorrect. You may find some thoughts of interest at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. - Nunh-huh

Yes, but an "experiment" that changed every instance of "color" to "colour" would NOT be reverted, and in fact, this has been done! (I.e., people have found it "necessary" to change "colour" to "color" or vice versa, and nothing was done to revert it.) The fact that my "experiment" WILL be reverted (by myself, incidentally), only DOES prove my point. (Namely, that this isn't the same thing as the color/colour debate, and that the dictionaries ARE wrong.) But, whatever. 128.111.88.244 06:23, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article notes that in queen-side castling

the a pawn is undefended

This means that the pawn on the a-file is undefended. Since "the" and "a" are both English articles, this initially reads like a mistake. ("The a pawn is undefended? Is a pawn undefended, or is the pawn undefended?") Is there a common convention for avoiding confusion between "a" as the name of a Chess file and "a" as the English indefinite article? How about "the pawn on the A file" or "the pawn on the a-file"? Is there a Wikipedia standard about using Chess notation in English texts? Schoen 20:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed that by listing the file. Bubba73 (talk), 02:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The simple solution is to write "the a-pawn".

I've reverted the latest edits about castling, which seemed to suggest that the rule (see #3.8) about not being able to castle out of check is only an "opinion". If it's in FIDE rules, then that's that - any other rules that people may play should be noted as exceptions, not equally valid alternatives. — sjorford++ 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Bubba73 (talk), 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this: Castling out of check is chess move where the King castles to escape an attack by his opponent. According to most opinions, this move is not allowed, though the reason is not given. Most chess players don't know about this restriction, and many think it should be allowed., whuch was merged from its own article. The rules of standard chess do not allow you to castle if you are in check. This is a rule, not an "opinion". Bubba73 (talk), 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a line about the king not being able to castle if the king would have to pass through squares that are under attack by enemy pieces James Strong 01:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For many years I was under the impression that one of the requirements for castling was that whether kingside or queenside when you castle; the last three pawns in either the A,B, and C files or F, G, and H depending which way you castle your king, must not have been moved past the 2nd or 7th rank respectively. However I a have discovered that the many sources I have checked from books to various websites does not state the pawn positions as a requiremnt. However I am occasionally introduced to carious diagrams that show those pawns in positions acting as barriers to the castles king. Is that just a coincidence or is that barrier of pawns actually a requirement? I hope someone has the answer to my question. Thank you in advance.

The barrier of pawns in not a requirement. However, you generally want those three pawns to be in their original position when you castle as the pawns give great protection to the king. It is often seen as a weakness to have any of the three pawns in front of your castled king to be moved from their original position as the hole(s) created by the moved pawn(s) allow the enemy to enter your castled position. James Strong 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, beware the back rank mate... Delirious prince 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See "Luft" [[1]] with regard to preventing the back rank mate.WHPratt (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. The king may not pass through squares that are under attack by enemy pieces, and the king cannot be in check after castling. (A few players condone this if the king would end up on a safe square after the move. *Though the reason for this is unknown, this restriction is accepted by most official chess committees worldwide.*)

The reason for this rule is clearly explained in En-passant: "The idea behind en passant was that when the two-square first move for pawns was introduced to speed up the opening phase [...] The same principle can be seen in the rule that one cannot castle through check. Since a king ordinarily moves only one square at a time, he cannot move two squares at once, and thus renders himself vulnerable to being captured in passing through the first square. Since by the conventions of chess, a king is not allowed to put himself into check, so castling through check is not allowed."

Does this clarify? Maybe this should be included on the Castling page. -- Irfy 128.131.54.146 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a more logical reason is that the rook will land on a square where it can be taken. So the requirement makes sense. The simple rule is that both the king and the rook must land on safe squares. What doesn't make sense is the ban on castling out of check. If the king is safe after castling, whether or not he's in check is totally irrelivant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.249 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, before I moved this note, it was in reference to the reason why you can't castle when the king is in check, not why you can't castle if the spaces between are in check (a rule I forget to restate in the requirements after I took it out from the clarifications, d'oh). At any rate, I think this is a fairly uncontroversial rule, so I'll remove the "unknown reason" bit.

And I forgot to sign, this just isn't my day. BrentG 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would posit that castling is intended to be an abbreviatory meant to expedite the game without drastically altering its course. In the common case where both sides castle early, this is more or less the result. If a defender were allowed to castle the king out of check or over an attacked square, castling would become an defensive maneuver that would not be achievable in its absence, thus changing the course of the early game.Mohanchous (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. If a king in check was allowed to castle, it would mean that another square would have to be covered in order to checkmate a king that could castle. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 00:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given all of the arguments raised here, and although it would involve a lot of diagrams, it might forestall questions if the first diagram under "Requirements" were duplicated with slight variations, so that a complete set were presented.

Diagram Req-1: [Show the rook on a1 under attack by a black piece -- probably a bishop at e5 or f6, as said piece must not control other first-rank squares.] Caption: "White may legally castle on the queenside, even though the rook at a1 is under attack. The castling rules do not restrict the rook in this manner."

Diagram Req-2: [Show the square b1 as controlled by black -- probably a bishop at f5 or g6, as said piece must not control other first-rank squares.] Caption: "White may legally castle on the queenside, even though the rook would pass over the opponent-controlled b1 square. The castling rules do not restrict the rook in this manner."

Diagram Req-3: [Show the square c1 as controlled by black.] Caption: "White may not castle on the queenside, as the king would be moving into a check on c1. A king is never permitted to move into a check."

Diagram Req-4: [Show the square d1 as controlled by black.] Caption: "White is not permitted to castle on the queenside, as the d1 square is controlled by the opponent, and the castling rules do not permit the king to move over a square so controlled."

Diagram Req-5: [Show the king on e1 in check.] Caption; "White may not castle on either side, as the castling rules prohibit castling while the king is in check."

Diagram Req-6: [Show the square f1 as controlled by black.] Caption: "White is not permitted to castle on the kingside, as the f1 square is controlled by the opponent, and the castling rules do not permit the king to move over a square so controlled."

Diagram Req-7: [Show the square g1 as controlled by black.] Caption: "White may not castle on the kingside, as the king would be moving into a check on g1. A king is never permitted to move into a check."

Diagram Req-8: [Show the rook on h1 under attack by a black piece.] Caption: "White may legally castle on the kingside, even though the rook at h1 is under attack. The castling rules do not restrict the rook in this manner."

As I noted in the first two examples, some care would have to be taken in selecting the black piece so as to avoid attacks on other first-rank squares that would rule out castling for reasons other than stated in the specific example. WHPratt (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be OK for a beginner book, I think it would be overkill in an encyclopedia. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that the rook cannot be under attack after castling in order for castling to work? -- Jordan 21:29, 7 August 2006

If the rook is under attack after castling, then the square it is on is a square the king moved over. Since the king is not allowed to pass through check, then castling would be prohibited in that situation.--Lkjhgfdsa 20:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Lkjhgfdsa is indeed the official rule; however, players or local communities often use other conventions; e.g. allowing a king to castle even when passing through check, if 1) it is not moving out of check, 2) it is not moving into check, 3) the rook is not under attack before castling, 4) the rook is not under attack after castling. This would allow a Q-side castling even when the Q-Bishop square is under attack. I can attest that this was the norm where I come from, and I assumed this was standard until I grew up and learned otherwise. Of course, such "rules" vary from locality to locality and I merely added this as of anecdotal value. -- Nahum (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the queen bishop square is under attack, queenside castling would put the king in check. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proviso (4) above is exactly the rule that says you can't castle through check, though. The square the rook ends up on is exactly the same as the square the king passes through. It is actually (3) that is against the standard rules: you can castle if your rook is attacked. Double sharp (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps User:Nahum believed that castling queenside consists of moving the king three squares instead of two. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rule #5 in the Requirements links to a footnote that already contradicts Rule #2. Any comments?? Georgia guy 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the footnote it basically says that a pawn can be promoted to a rook once he has reached the other side. If he's in front of the King when he does this, the resulting Rook will not have moved, and thus technically Rule 2 would not forbid a vertical castle, across the board, to occur. Eboli 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered an external link to a site on the German Wikipedia that has no equivalent in the English Wikipedia. Can anyone please create the English equivalent?? Georgia guy 00:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What equivalent?... WinterSpw 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting what was labeled requirement #7: The king and the rook must be on the same rank.

Of course the king and rook are on the same rank if neither has been yet moved, which is rule #1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.169.218.182 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As the article explains, the problem is when you promote a pawn to a rook. That (new) rook has not yet moved. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- nevermind, I just read the reference in the notes. That seems ridiculous though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.169.218.182 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is a little ridiculous, and confusing. We're just supposed to report what reliable sources say about the matter, though, and the FIDE rules, and the way they handle the issue, are the important source there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite sad though. I mean, if you can actually make productive use of such an outrageous move, more power to you! 24.110.145.57 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't happy or sad - it is a rule. Bubba73 (talk), 20:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article could use a section on the history of the castling rule. The Oxford Companion to Chess has some useful material, and I think A History of Chess has even more detail. Italian free castling should be described, and then the mention of free castling in Serafino Dubois could be made into a link. Quale 09:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section based on Sunnucks' Encyclopedia. OTher sources may have more info that can be added. Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say that there is an enemy knight next to the rook on the kingside. neither king nor rook have moved. Can the king castle, and take the piece? BillMasen 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find information in the article that will answer this question. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summarily, no you can't. WinterSpw 23:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Requirements": 3. There must be no pieces between the king and the chosen rook. -- Jao 09:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 7 for castling states "The king and the chosen rook must be on the same rank." If neither the rook nor the king have moved, then they are certainly on the same rank. Why does this need to be stated, then? hgilbert (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the rules. Read the footnote attached to it for the reason. Bubba73 (talk), 00:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the point is moot, since FIDE added the extra rule, I agree with hgilbert about the superfluity. The case that Krabbe points out (vertical castling) is surely covered by a reasonable reading of rule 2: the new-formed rook has moved during the game, albeit in the form of a pawn. If they wished to eliminate all possible ambiguity, they could have simply rephrased rule 2 to say that both the rook and King must have occupied their current locations since the beginning of the game.JudahH (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a different piece when it was a pawn. And obviously the FIDE rules committee did not think so either. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article explains where and when does Castling come from but nowhere can I find why chess players of 500 years ago found out the need for such a rule. Does anybody know? Not only when it was invented, but also why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.92.211.187 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Bubba73 (talk), 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this seriously necessary?

"0-0" redirects here. For the reference to someone who wears glasses (0-0), see emoticon.

Do you think a lot of people search for "0-0" expecting to find glasses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.182.172.229 (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

0-0 is accessed a few times per day, on average. Some of them are probably looking for the emoticon, so I think it should either be here or 0-0 should be a disambig page. Bubba73 (talk), 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i made it a disambig page, like 0-0-0. Bubba73 (talk), 20:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following simple analytical logic, Tim Krabbe used "O-O-O-O-O-O" to denote the "vertical castling" in his infamous problem. He had the king move the usual two squares towards the promoted rook, and this rook had to traverse six squares to jump the king and deliver a checkmate from the e2 square.WHPratt (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added: I remember seeing Krabbe's outrageous "problem" in Chess Review back in the early 1970s, and he seemed to think that it would have been legal. I wonder if the "same rank" codicil was "always" there, or whether it may have been added in response to someone concocting this scenario. Some research would be appropriate. WHPratt (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was legal at the time, according to a strict application of the rules. In fact, FIDE changed the rules as a result! See footnote #2 in the article.Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debatable: arguably, a Rook that began life as a pawn has "previously moved". Still, it made sense to revise the rules to remove all ambiguity. JudahH (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the rook has not moved. FIDE realized that there was a loophole in the rules so they changed it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I said debatable: the debate would revolve around whether moves made in a previous life are attributable to the pawn-cum-Rook. I have little doubt that had a move like Krabbe's been attempted in an actual tournament game, said debate would have ensued. No argument that FIDE revised the rules to eliminate this as a possible loophole. JudahH (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Krabbé's interpretation of how to castle with a promoted rook on e8 is only one possibility. You could interpret the rule as "if there are an odd number of spaces between the king and the rook, the king lands on the middle one and the rook next to it on the other side; if there are an even number, the king lands just after the middle", and so the king would end up on e5 and the rook on e4! (Not very safe, isn't it? This is the interpretation used in Betza's Castlingmost Chess.) Double sharp (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The rule has been that the king rook cannot have moved. If either was on any square e2 to e7, it would have moved. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean Krabbé's vertical castling with an e8-rook. He has the king end up on e3 and the promoted rook end up on e2; I think it would also make sense for the king to end up on e5 and the promoted rook on e4. Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rule says to move the king two squares and the rook goes on the other side. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: " ... it moves the king into a safer position away from the center of the board, and it moves the rook to a more active position in the center of the board (it is possible even to checkmate with castling."

I don't recall any top-level game in which castling delivered checkmate, but the article could reference the article on Edward Lasker [[2]], section "Notable games." In his famous game against Sir George Thomas, Edward Lasker sacrifices his queen, then drives Thomas' king to the opposite side of the board. He delivers a checkmate by shifting his own king to the second rank, discovering check from a rook. But he could have just as easily castled to end the game. WHPratt (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Lawrence Day for a link to just such a finish. Captain Pedant (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I've added it to the article. Bubba73 (talk), 22:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a dramatic chess game in Edgar Ulmer's film, The Black Cat (1934). We don't get any close views of the play, but it appears that Poelzig (Boris Karloff) defeats Werdegast (Bela Lugosi) by moving two pieces at the same time. I.e., he presumably delivers the final stroke via castling. WHPratt (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I wish he had castled!!! Bubba73 (talk), 17:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redircted Castling on opposite sides here. Section to be created. SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this article, and I can't seem to find (other than in the history) what the king can now do. I remember playing it that the king can move 2 squares once. In the history of castling section, it says "the king can now move two squares or a knights move" but does that still apply, and for how many moves can the king do this? androo123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.182.78 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the question. These special moves were precursors of castling; the current castling move superseded them so they are no longer legal. As for what happens after castling, there are no special provisions. The king moves after castling in exactly the same way it did before castling (except that, for obvious reasons, it cannot castle again). —JAO • T • C 18:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After castling the king can make any legal move. Castling again is not a legal move. The other thing in "history" don't apply now. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castling is in most non-English speaking nations known as 'Rochieren/Rochada/Roque'. That seems to be German, Spanish (?) and French -- just three languages, hardly "most". Unless the intent was to say that most languages use a similar word. Even if so, I somewhat doubt it. 91.105.48.135 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I fixed this. But it is a fact that quite a few languages use a similar word, just check the interwiki links. -- 217.190.221.241 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diagrams seem to be messed up. In the first two, the white pieces are shifted one file to the right.WHPratt (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong - when I edit them, they look OK but the first rank is shifted one square, as you say. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

Castling (2nd definition)

(n.) That which is cast or brought forth prematurely; an abortion.

Just in case someone looks (like I did) for this meaning rather than the Chess one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahum (talk • contribs) 10:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason for the 0-0 notation other than "have to call it something"? -- 217.190.221.241 (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any reason. In old literature it was written as "castles" or "castles queenside". 0-0 is short and not likely to be confused with anything else. I think initially that 0-0 was used for both sides. Perhaps O-O symbolizes exchanging the two pieces, but I am just speculating. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered the history of this notation myself. To help my students remember the difference, I tell them that the number of 0's (or O's) is same as the number of squares between the King and Rook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.60 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the number of squares that the rook moves. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article: "It is a common mistake to think that the requirements for castling are even more stringent than the above. To clarify: 1. The king may have been in check previously, as long as it is not in check at the time of castling. " ...

In keeping with a policy of overkill (which makes sense in an encyclopedia), I'd suggest adding . . .

"1. The king may have been in check previously, as long as it is not in check at the time of castling. (Obviously, this check must have been resolved by means other than moving the king.)"

Just to clarify that an early check doesn't rule out castling unless the king is moved in response. WHPratt (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is too much because it is stated earlier that the king cannot have moved previously. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did admit that it was overkill to the second or third degree, but there's a lot of that here. ;) WHPratt (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At one time someone (at the chess article I think, or the chess project talk page) objected to the whole "It is a common mistake to think that the requirements for castling are even more stringent..." part, but the "notable castelings" shows some examples where world-class players had such misconceptions. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute whether or not you can castle out of check on this article. I think we need to take a vote as to whether it should be legal or not. I doubt the inventors of castling would make this move so confusing. 12.158.92.249 (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I support. 12.158.92.249 (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't up for us to vote whether or not it should be legal to castle while in check - it is illegal (see any rulebook). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree too, it doesn't make sense at all. The rules of chess aren't etched in stone, you know. 64.134.67.201 (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are official rules of chess, set by FIDE and adhered to by all affiliates. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12.158.92.249, you're welcome to promote your own variant version of chess, one that allows this particular move (or anything else, for that matter). You may even persuade a number of people to play it. But you'd have to win over literal millions of traditional chess players to make your version "official." WHPratt (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. It gives the actual rule, not what some people wish it was (or incorrectly think it is). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits claiming that it is legal in chess to castle out of check are vandalism and can be reverted on sight without running afoul of WP:3RR. Making those bad edits to insert false information in the article is subject to WP:3RR so the anon is risking being blocked. Quale (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You cannot castle out of check. Just try it in any modern chess computer and you'll see it's not allowed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 05:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or play a game online - they probably enforce the rules too. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or just google it. Of course as has been pointed out before the definitive answer to this question is provided by FIDE Laws of Chess which state "(2) Castling is prevented temporarily: if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces" (emphasis mine). None of this matters because I think we're just being trolled. Quale (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Contrary to what the anonymous user who started this section seems to think, Wikipedia does not work by voting. However, if that user wishes to think of this as a vote then there is clearly a majority in favour of this. There is clearly a solid consensus here in favour of sticking to the actual rule, not what that user thinks it ought to be. In addition, there is a reliable source (the FIDE laws of chess) which supports this, and no reliable source which supports the other view. Consensus and reliable sources are what Wikipedia uses to settle disagreements about content, and both of them support the same decision. It is therefore unacceptable to continue to edit war to maintain the non-standard interpretation, and anyone who does so can expect to be blocked. Two of the IPs used by the editor who started this have been temporarily blocked, and the article has been semiprotected. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• So some is disputing a rule whats all the fuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.207.96 (talk • contribs)

• • Because it is indisputable that the rule is that you can't castle when in check. The IP users want to use Wikipedia as a blog to say they don't like the rule. Wikipedia is not a blog - it is an encyclopedia that should state what the rule actually is. And Wikipedia article talk pages are for improving the article - not a forum for saying you don't like the rule. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get real, if the king is safe once you're done castling is ought to be okay, why make it more complicated then it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.56 (talk • contribs)

• We don't make the rules. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Did anyone ever write to whoever does ask why this rules exists to begin with or why it should even exist? 156.111.111.46 (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure about this question. Are you asking about writing to the people who made the rule? I think they died hundreds of years ago. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a good debate. It really doesn't make any sense that being in check blocks castling, since the rules do state you have to get the king to safety if it's attacked. The important thing is whether or not the King lands on an attacked square, not whether or not the King is being attacked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.60.88 (talk • contribs)

Okay, what is this talk page for anyway?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.166.224 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 22 April 2011

A talk page "is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page". You can read further detail at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's legitimate, and possibly useful for a reader to speak up when some rule seems to violate common sense as he or she sees it. This suggests that the article may be improved -- that's the whole idea -- by pre-emptively addressing the point in the 'historical' section. It should be obvious that for the widespread acceptance of rules introduced later in the game's development -- like en passant and castling -- these had to be implemented with a host of restrictions to assure the traditionalist that his favorite game wasn't careening towards some unpleasant place in a handbasket. "Note that everybody uses five or six moves to tuck away his king in the corner. We can speed things up just a bit by allowing this particular move. However, you still have to prepare properly to use it. It's a reward for careful development, not a device to get a bad player out of a crisis." That has a chance to win acceptance. It's certainly better than "How about letting the king do this? Don't worry, nobody's going to exploit the privilege." I think that was the philosophy in play at the time. New rules for an entrenched structure will have to be conservative. Now, I'm not sure exactly how to work that into the text, but I suspect there's a way. WHPratt (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editors were not questioning why the rule is as it is - they were insisting that it isn't that way. I've been researching the rule and its history and I haven't come up with anything. As far as I can tell, the restrictions have always been there, i.e. I haven't found any mention of them being added. The restriction about the king and rook not having previously moved is in the same category. What I surmise is that castling was considered a special privilege so they felt that restrictions could be put on it. So I haven't found anything about those restrictions or their history to add to the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the idea that it's legitimate or useful to spam the talk page the way that the anons have. Keep in mind that their antics aren't confined to the talk page, they also damage the articles and edit war to try to include false claims, frequently poorly written and ungrammatical as well. In my view it's a waste of time and is just trolling. There is a small amount of information available on the development and adoption of the modern rules, but I haven't seen a lot. It wasn't until the time of Staunton that all current rules were accepted nearly universally. Rules are essentially arbitrary when it comes right down to it. You might just as well ask why pawns can't move backwards when every other piece can. I don't think there's any reason for it, it's just the way it is. Q. Why can't you castle out of check in chess? A. Because that's the rule. If you could castle out of check it would be a different game, and not chess. Quale (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the rules of chess have changed over the years so what is everyone balking at this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.239.63.5 (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rule has been the same since the 17th century. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If any classic board game's rules lend themselves to change, then i'd say either write to the game's committe or just agree with your oppnenet it's legal. the only significant square that should permit or forbid castling the king's final square. when you get out of check you look for a safe suqare to move to and one that isn't occupied by a friendly piece. so this really seems illogical to me as an amateur and therefore i voice my opposition. 174.252.35.12 (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to voice your opposition. Here we report what the rule really is. I think modern castling goes back to at least 1620 and the forerunner of that was the king's leap. Some 1560 rules state that it can't be done while in check.

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page and i have to right to ask questions like you do. the basis is that the rule should be simplified. why should all three squares (the starting square, the second square and the final square be safe when all you need is one safe square? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.35.12 (talk • contribs)

The talk pages of articles are for discussing improvements to the article. You can ask questions on the help pages. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As inappropriate as this discussion is for the talk page, I would claim that the current rules are actually very logical. Castling, like the pawn's initial double step, is a case of making two moves at once. Therefore you can't castle through check as your king would be taken en passant. As for castling when you are in check, it makes sense that such a powerful ability such as doublemoving (castling in this case) would be severely restricted. Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested earlier in this talk section, the new rules like en passant and castling must have horrified many traditionalists. Some compromising restraints would have to be put in place for the rules to gain acceptance. hence "severely restricted." WHPratt (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A possible rationalization regarding castling out of check is that castling takes a long time to perform and thus cannot be done in an emergency (when the king is under attack). Double sharp (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is queenside castling possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.49.21 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I wonder! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it means castling with the queen? If that's what you mean, then no. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means castling with the a-file rook instead of the h-file rook. That is possible. Double sharp (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reference for the 'common mistake' line in the Requirements section. In general, is a single example enough? I think, from my own experience, that being unsure about whether you can castle when the rook is threatened is fairly common, but I realise that's not exactly referable... NJHartley (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even Yuri Averbakh failed to know that once (in the article). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you cannot castle if your king or rook has been moved. What if your rook was captured? Do you also lose your ability to castle in that case? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Castling moves the king two spaces and the rook to the other side. You can't do it if you don't have that rook. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the rules do state that a player who begins an "odds" game without a rook (as a means of conceding a handicap to the opponent) may still castle as if the rook were there, provided the other requirements are still met (with an added stipulation that no other man can have occupied the missing rook's square at any time.) All this means is that you may be able to move your king two squares towards the edge under these circumstances. WHPratt (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think the special provision for rook odds is of sufficient interest to deserve a mention in the article, if we can find a source. Quale (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an official source for this rule (i.e. castling with rook odds)? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that I read it somewhere, as it never would have occurred to me to make it up. However, I couldn't find it in my copies of the USCF/FIDE rules. I wouldn't be surprised if the topic of "odds games" is absent from most codes, as the whole idea is pretty much extra-legal. I'm really not sure that it's worth mentioning in the article. I am sure that someone can find it if it exists. WHPratt (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be in the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That book doesn't say. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WHPRatt, I know you didn't and wouldn't make it up. I'm vaguely familiar with the rule as well. But Krakatoa certainly has a source, and in fact he wrote an entire article about chess handicaps. You can find a reference for the castling rule with rook odds in an article he wrote, Chess handicap#Main. Quale (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In reading through that article, it becomes evident that in giving handicaps, the opponents pretty much make up the rules for the occasion; there are just some general conventions (e.g., if you offer to spot someone a knight, it's the queen's knight unless explicitly specified.) If you Google "Phantom" "and "Rook" together, you'll find varying historical opinions on the castling eligibility of such. It's more evidence that this has no place in the mainstream article on castling, but should be noted somewhere. I only brought it up here in the interest of completeness. WHPratt (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From book: Startling Castling! by Robert Timmer

Under the strict touch-move rules enforced in most tournaments, castling is considered a king move. A player who intends to castle but touches the rook first would be committed to make a rook move, and thus will not be permitted to castle.

White changes his mind as he noticed mate in 1, so he use trick as shown in the picture file.

https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/JjXCxHW8a.png

https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/H8wOCNS.png

Sunny3113 (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why 0-0 and 0-0-0 were chosen as the notation for castling is an interesting question, but I am not sure the answer is known. I removed the recently added claim "This notation derives from the number of empty squares required to enable the move." This claims sounds plausible on its face, but I think is actually implausible. Or maybe it's true but it's implausible to think that we can support it with a WP:RS reliable source. I've never seen any reference that supports this claim.

Online forums are not WP:RS reliable sources, but this might be of interest: chess.stackexchange.com: why-are-o-o-and-o-o-o-symbols-used-for-castling-in-algebraic-notation – "The castling notation was invented by Johann Allgaier and used for the first time in his 1811 2nd edition of his Neue theoretisch-praktische Anweisung zum Schachspiel. He didn't explain why he came up with it." Quale (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you (which is why I added the Citation Needed). That could be the reason, but I don't think I've ever heard that from a reliable source. If it were because of the number of empty squares, then why not 00 instead of 0-0? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support what you did. I think {{cn}} tags are good and I don't like to completely remove good-faith contributions, but I am wary about how dubious uncited claims in Wikipedia end up copied from Wikipedia on other websites which are then cited here to support the false claims in Wikipedia. Better to not give those weeds a chance to take root elsewhere, I think. Quale (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

would the recent proposal to remove castling by former world chess champion kramnik and the test computer matches played without castling be relevant enough to mention in this article, or too unimportant?

https://www.chess.com/article/view/no-castling-chess-kramnik-alphazero — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.66.231 (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that article, so thanks for bringing it to our attention. It was just published three weeks ago so it's hard to tell if the idea will gain any further interest, but former world champion Kramnik's ideas about chess are important enough to be included in Wikipedia, and I think this is the appropriate article if a no-castling variant of chess is to be mentioned. It seems to me that if this variant were to become popular then in time a new opening book would be developed for it, meaning that one of the purported advantages (reducing the value of opening preparation and promoting increased creativity at the board) would diminish over time. But the variant is said to lead to a more dynamic game where it is harder to play it safe even as White, so maybe this would be a more durable characteristic than I think.

Kramnik's comments on Fischer Random/Chess960 probably should be added to the Fischer Random article ("Fischer Random is an interesting format, but it has its drawbacks. In particular, the nontraditional starting positions make it difficult for many amateurs to enjoy the game until more familiar positions are achieved. The same is true for world-class players, as many have confessed to me privately. Finally, it also seems to lack an aesthetic quality found in traditional chess, which makes it less appealing for both players and viewers, even if it does occasionally result in an exciting game.") Quale (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I reverted a change to the section about the Feuer-O’Kelly game. Looking back, I probably should have put in the effort to fix the numerous flaws I found with it, but I found it easier to throw it all in the bin, so I apologize for that. I do think the added context is helpful.

So I went through with fixing all the flaws. First of all, the diagrammed position was completely inaccurate to the game, so I had to deal with that. Then I actually decided that another section of the game would be more useful to include. You see, 10...Rxb2 is not actually a blunder; it does not in itself allow the relevant tactical sequence. The real blunder is 11...dxe5, which does allow 12.Qxd8+ Kxd8 13.0-0-0+. So I diagrammed the position after 11.dxe5 to account for that. Then there were a few grammatical and spelling errors and some strange phrasing, so I fixed that, no big deal. And that about sums it up.

I am making this talk page post so that nobody gets the wrong idea. I’d really like to avoid an edit war. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the diagram and some other stuff. In the human sense, 10...Rxb2 is indeed a blunder. If you see that after 11.dxe5 you can't recapture the pawn because of the castling tactic, then you're not going to play 10....Rxb2. Having played 10...Rxb2, I guarantee 99% of humans will follow up with 11...dxe5 without a second thought. The point of the example is to illustrate the unusual tactical motif, which rarely occurs in games. It doesn't even fit into the usual classification of tactics (forks, pins, discovered checks, skewers). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, you’re completely wrong, and secondly, that’s completely irrelevant. Whether or not a move is a blunder is a matter of objective assessment; whether the party playing it is a chess-playing quantum supercomputer or a monkey throwing pieces around at random has absolutely no relevance to anything. 10...Rxb2 is not a mistake, end of story. And to imply that the entire human species is too stupid to calculate three moves ahead is so random and baseless that it makes me think it’s just a projection of your own skill level.

Due to the aforementioned, I am reverting your edit. If any further issues arise, I am bringing in outside help to settle the dispute. This has gone on long enough. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10...Rxb2 absolutely is a mistake. Nobody would play it unless they missed the tactical motif. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll wait until you have an explanation to back up your viewpoint, then. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already given. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion and diagram of Feuer-O'Kelly seems to have arrived at something reasonable. I do not know how the diagram got so wrong without anyone noticing, but it is OK now.

I looked at the tactics after 10...Rxb2 11.dxe5 Ng6, and they are non-trivial. I am not sure I have even convinced myself that White is better. So I am not sure that we should have a question mark on 10...Rxb2, unless we have a reliable source to cite. However that doesn't mean that we should start with the position after 11.... dxe5. A reader might be curious as to how that position arose, especially since it looks kind of crazy. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with starting with 10...Rxb2. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can source a "dubious" (?!) to Canadian correspondence master George Huczek, but he gives Black's 11th as 11...fxe5, then 12.Nxe5 dxe5?? etc MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC) Also a "?" by IM Gary Lane. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Korn cites a Soviet magazine and notes confusion over exactly which moves were played: [3] MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O'Kelly claims he won that game?? [4]

http://www.belgianchesshistory.be/tournament/belgian-championship-liege-2/ suggests that the result and moves given in the chessgames site are correct, though I obviously don't have access to the original Belgian sources. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was removed: "Tim Krabbé composed a joke chess problem containing vertical castling involving a king on e1 and a promoted rook on e8. The loophole in the definition of castling upon which this problem was based was removed by FIDE in June 1974 by the new requirement that the rook used to castle must occupy the same rank as the king."

FIDE did change the rule in 1974. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1974 FIDE Interpretation Article 6.1 was merely explanatory and didn't address vertical castling. See https://www.janko.at/Retros/Glossary/FideLaws1977.htm. Other stuff regarding Pam-Krabbé castling is covered in the history section. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I just looked it up. It was changed in 1974, but it just clarifies it:

• old: ... the king is transferred from its original square to either of the nearest squares of the same color in the same rank ...

• 1974: ... the king is transferred, from its original square, two squares towards either rook on the same rank ... Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All that needs to be said here is that some variants based on Western chess allow castling, sometimes in modified form, and some don't. It certainly doesn't need huge diagrams. The current level of detail is WP:UNDUE in my opinion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is necessary to mention Capablanca chess, there should be a link to that variant's article. But I suggest that if we need a description of castling in that variant, it should be in that variant's article. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of the list of conditions under which castling is allowed, number 1 is not a condition. It is part of the definition of castling. I propose that it be removed from the list, and the conditions be renumbered. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, plus a minor modification on "description". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hope of digging up the old reference (Strunk and White) from which I learned things like colon versus semicolon, so I googled it and found this: http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/colons-vs-semicolons

The sentence in question consists of three parts:

• Castling is generally an important goal in the opening
• it moves the king to safety away from the center of the board
• and it moves the rook to a more active position in the center of the board

The second and third parts are elaborations on the first part. We are giving a list (of length 2) of reasons why castling is an important goal

This is a classic example of a situation where a colon is used to set off a list, and semicolons are used to terminate each entry of the list (except the last), as described in the article linked above. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of Strunk and White right behind me, if you need it. But I agree with your change. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've changed my mind on the matter. The usage of the semicolon doesn't seem to be corroborated by your source, and at that rate, you might've misremembered what Strunk and White said, which we have no way of knowing because, according to you, the reference is gone.

My decision will be based on the Wikipedia Manual of Style, according to which semicolons are to be used in lists only where commas would be confusing, which is not the case here. I am reverting the change. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, my source supports using a colon instead of a semi-colon to set off a list, but it doesn't say what to use to separate list items. And MOS:COLON suggests using commas, except where the list items get out of hand. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:MaxBrowne2, most of your changes are legitimately nonsensical.

1. Why are you removing the links to other articles? Do they personally vex you?
2. What do you mean, "the" king? There are two kings. Which king?
3. So you removed the "of the same color" part. In and of itself, this is probably the lesat unreasonable change, but the fact that this was the only one you felt like mentioning in your edit summary utterly escapes my comprehension. Even then, I also don't agree with this change. Don't get me wrong, there's semantically no difference; if there were hypothetically a promoted enemy rook on one's first rank with an unobstructed view of one's king, then castling with it would violate conditions 3, 4, and 5 all at once. But it's about the principle of it, you know? Just as a way to keep clear the "spirit" of the rule. After all, 1) FIDE mentions it themselves, 2) this article is no stranger to mentioning redundant stuff anyway (see condition 5), and 3) any chess variants that are defined in terms of "the rules of chess, except for these changes" could introduce a change such that the clause actually becomes significant for something. Okay, maybe that's not convincing, but honestly, whatever. Your point about readers not being lawyers doesn't really hold water, either; Wikipedia can be read by anyone and everyone connected to the Internet, including laywers, as well as non-laywers who really like fine details. Alright, sorry that I've kinda gone off rambling at this point.

I hope this gives you an understanding of my thought process for favoring my version. I'm gonna go make a reversion. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The links don't bother me and I have no problem with restoring them. "The" king is better than "a" king because the player who is performing the move obviously only has one king. The "same color" bit seems unnecessary to me since it defies common sense that anyone would attempt to castle with a rook of opposite colour... but yes it seems for some reason FIDE thought it necessary to include that phrasing in their rules. Doesn't mean we have to. I changed the header of this discussion because it really isn't at all helpful to make things personal right off the bat like that. It's not about you or me, it's about the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the header, I agree that it wasn't very good at all.

The "the" would make sense if the text had specified a player in the first place, but it's the first sentence of the article, so obviously no player was specified at all. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:MaxBrowne2, I wish to discuss some things.

1. Is it really necessary to specify that the player is performing the move? Every move is performed by a player.
2. Actually, which player? There are two players, and both of them can definitely castle. And why "one of the rooks on the same rank"? It's not a given that there are rooks on the same rank. With all the definite articles all over the place, it's almost as if the opening sentence is supposed to be read with the expectation of being preceded by something like, "There is a king and two rooks, and all of them are on the same file." But there is no such preceding sentence, so it is my view that using indefinite articles instead makes more sense.

I will call in outside support. For reference, here is my version of the lead sentence:

Castling is a move in the game of chess in which a king moves two squares toward a rook on the same rank and the rook moves to the square that the king crossed.

ISaveNewspapers (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed sentence is clear and concise, except that it doesn't specify that the rook must be the same color as the king. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with changing "the player" to "a player" – note that the second sentence also uses "a player". I also agree that "a rook" is better than "one of the rooks", not for the reason you gave, but because the reference to multiple rooks creates ambiguity as to which rook moves. I'd agree with your suggested rewording except that I agree with Max in the previous discussion that "the king", not "a king", is correct. To respond to your last comment in the previous discussion, the lead sentence has specified a king – the king of the player having the move. That player cannot move the opponent's king. (To respond to Bubba, that player can't move the opponent's rooks either, so there is no need to specify the rook's colour.)

It makes little difference whether we say pieces "move" or "are moved (by a player)", but the second is slightly more verbose. In any case, we should pick one convention and stick to it within the article. Right now the article mixes the two. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had "their king" originally but someone objected to singular they. As far as I'm concerned the English language is not static and evolves along with the societies that use it, not only in its vocabulary but also in its grammar. Singular they may have been unacceptable 40 years ago but it's acceptable today. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If it matters, singular they is very definitively part of the English language, considering that it has been used since the 14th century, according to Wikipedia. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for wording this incorrectly. The only thing I really proved is that it's been around a while. A good metric for the presence of singular they in the English language is that a whole lot of people use it all the time. Also, thank you to User:MaxBrowne2 for apparently changing his mind on this matter. I appreciate it. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that a player may only move their own pieces in chess, but not every reader will know that from the get-go. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is even more basic knowledge than knowing how each of the pieces move or how they're initially set up. If you cannot accept that, then Bubba's concern is pertinent. Singular they is fine by me. Cobblet (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who doesn't like singular they. The underlying principle is, don't distract the reader. Some readers find "he" to be distracting, others are distracted by "she", everybody is distracted by "he or she" and "he/she", and old-timers like myself are distracted by singular "they". So the best is to avoid pronouns like that whenever possible. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But then it starts to get silly if you have to avoid using any possessive pronouns at all, to avoid "distracting" people. A possessive pronoun is definitely superior to "the king", and in contemporary English "their king" is better than "his king". I also agree that it's reasonable to assume the reader is not a complete ignormaus and knows that you only move your own pieces in chess. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We may have to agree to disagree about "the king". Although this all seems like a very modern discussion, people have been using "the king" to avoid a possessive pronoun since before I started reading about chess, and so it is non-distracting to me. Meanwhile, I was raised to expect singular matched with singular and plural matched to plural, so I absolutely notice it whenever I see "their king".

In any case, the distraction principle is very important. If your reader is thinking about gender or singular vs. plural, he or she isn't thinking about whatever you are writing about, so you lose. Complete rewrite is sometimes a realistic solution. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a case where "their" is a significant improvement over "the". "Their" would come more naturally to me, but "the" is fine. But there are other situations where the singular they is probably better than the alternatives. For instance, consider the following sentence from Chess endgame#Bishop and pawn versus bishop on the same color: "If the defending king is behind the pawn and the attacking king is near the pawn, the defender can draw only if his king is attacking the pawn, he has the opposition, and his bishop can move on two diagonals that each have at least two squares available." I would find repeated use of "the defender('s)" quite distracting and would much prefer they/their. Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, except for substituting "the defending king" for "the Black King" and "the attacking king" for "the White King", we are nearly copying Fine word for word. Perhaps we should be using a direct quote here. Anyway, in Fine, there are two instances of "his", and it's not easy to avoid them. However I don't think that changing them to "their" would help; it would only draw attention to the gender problem, rather than solving it. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using they/their literally solves the problem of finding a gender-neutral alternative. You may find this usage distracting and therefore problematic for a different reason, but the "gender problem" remains solved. Cobblet (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that "their king" is an improvement on "the king" (which begs the question "which king?"), and I am prepared to pay the price of "distracting old timers". Sorry Bruce but this is the way the language is going. Not sure which way contemporary chess books are going (haven't bought one in years) but "default he" is becoming increasingly unacceptable, and avoiding pronouns altogether is ridiculous.MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, "their king" is not an improvement, and there is no "loss of information" going to "the king". Players do not move one another's pieces in this game, they only move their own. Usage such as "White moves the king to h1" has been standard in chess for many years.

It's annoying when I have devised a correct and attractive solution to the gender problem, and another editor blunders in and decides his own non-solution is an "improvement".

The assertion that "a whole lot of people use [singular they] all the time" is of little relevance. Outside of Wikipedia, I have not found any uses of singular they in explanations of chess rules, on line or in print, or in any other chess analysis, in any of the chess books or magazines in my collection. (Yes, I am still buying chess books.) As far as I can tell, the applicable rule has not changed since I learned how to write: if you want your writing to be taken seriously, you have to take it seriously yourself. You cannot solve the gender problem by declaring it to be solved. Sorry, but you have to solve it over again, each time you write something that requires a solution. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone an ignoramus for coming to Wikipedia for information is like insulting a restaurant-goer for being hungry: really uncool and also nonsensical. But okay, fine, I do imagine that we only have that definition at the top as a formality. I think that anyone who comes to this page is here for information other than just the basic definition of the rule. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to assume a scintilla of background knowledge on the reader's part, say, Article 1 of FIDE's Laws of Chess. It would even be insulting not to make that assumption in chess-related articles other than Chess, Rules of chess, Checkmate and the like. Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who am I calling an ignoramus? I'm suggesting we should assume the reader is not one. Give your readers a bit of credit, and assume they know you don't move your opponent's pieces in chess. Most 10 year olds know this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me answer your question. Per to the comment you wrote, the people you are calling ignoramuses are the people who don't know about the whole "you can only move your own pieces" thing. I'm not sure how you managed to forget what you wrote in your own comment, but I'm perfectly happy to remind you. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:MaxBrowne2. I removed that diagram because I already put another diagram in the "Examples" section that demonstrates even better what the removed diagram sets out to demonstrate. Hope this clears things up. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't "clear things up", the Fischer-Najdorf game is an excellent and easy to understand example of why two positions can have the same pieces in the same positions but not be identical according to the rules of chess. It should stay. Same reason I chose the Mattison game for the Thornton castling trap example - no external complicating factors, easy to understand. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but my example does all that, and the repetition of position thing was actually relevant to the situation. Plus, I don't think you need to stick the example in the "Relevance to draw by repetition" section. I mean, if you really want, I guess you could have just a really simple diagram like this: https://lichess.org/analysis/4k3/8/8/8/8/8/8/4K2R_w_K_-_0_1

If you really think that giving an example to demonstrate this rule is important, I'll go ahead and stick that in there for you. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that most readers don't even get past the lead, let alone the later sections with all the explanatory stuff. We want to make it as easy to understand as possible in the early sections. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well fine, I did that with my diagram, and I'd say that my diagram was much more easily digestible than yours. What do you want from me? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing it's from actual play, not just some hypothetical imaginary position from the rules. It's also a well known game. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that matter? We have an entire section of the article dedicated to examples from actual play, but apparently that's not good enough for you.

By the way, in case you haven't checked your talk page, I would like to get in contact with you in more efficient of a manner than using Wikipedia comments. If you have a Discord account or anything else where we can chat, please do share. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to move the Karpov-Miles example up, to replace the Fischer-Najdorf example? I like the Karpov-Miles example because it involved a real honest-to-god rejection of a repetition claim. (Also because I didn't immediately see why castling rights had been lost.) The Fischer-Najdorf example is fine as far as it goes, but if I had to choose, I'd choose Karpov-Miles. BTW I don't think we need the sentence about Karpov losing 3 minutes on his clock -- not relevant. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Fisher-Najdorf doesn't relate to repetition whereas Karpov-Miles does (and that is the title of the subsection). But it seems that Fisher-Najdorf is still important. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with replacing Fischer-Najdorf with Karpov-Miles as an illustration of why two positions with the pieces on the same sqaures can be considered different according to the threefold repetition rule. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to avoid this word in chess articles. Chess is just a game and enemy is a strong word. "Opponent's piece" is ok, but more often than not it is clear from context whose pieces you are referring to and it is not necessary to state it explicitly. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised at this, I would not have raised an eyebrow at the use of "enemy piece". Google shows it in various places, including other Wikipedia articles. I agree that context is sometimes sufficient, but when it isn't, "enemy piece" is less stilted than "opponent's piece". Bruce leverett (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word opposing is fine, I guess. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make it about me in your edit summaries. The focus is on improving the encyclopedia, not satisfying individual editors. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement w/ Bruce. (How many times have we read in chess books and magazines phrase "[the] enemy camp"? Answer: Hundreds if not thousands of times. And no, "opposing" isn't fine, it's unnecessary and less clear. p.s. Re "chess is just a game", that's subjective opinion, how many GMs, Korchnoi, Karpov, etc have written bios titled Chess is my Life? That's more than a game. Not to mention the Soviets asserted their chess as demonstrable proof of cultural and governmental superiority for many decades. Not to mention the 1972 Fischer–Spassky match represented much more than "just a game". Don't go "woke" on me, Max! ;) --IHTS (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help, help, I'm being microagressed! MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find "enemy" especially controversial. Everyone knows that this is a game, and, please note: a competition! WHPratt (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the "Rules" section have so much information that has nothing to do with the rules? Calling User:Bruce leverett. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I wanted to bring Fischer-Najdorf and Karpov-Miles together, and I chose to move the latter up close to the former. If you want to reorganize, have at it, if I don't like it, we can iterate until we find something we both like. Feel free to rename sections, create new sections, combine sections, whatever. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of adding a game to the "Examples" section. It will be a game from this list: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1035963

Now, you may be thinking that there are already quite a sufficient number of examples. Yes, indeed, there are. In fact, that is why I am proposing this addition. You see, after adding this game, we can just axe the other two demonstrations of checkmate by castling, as those games do not actually have checkmate by castling. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chessgames.com is not a reliable source. Anybody can contribute to it, and there is no review or screening process. So one cannot assume that a game score found there is correct, or that the players' names and the date are correct, or even that the game was played at all.

If you have a reliable source that supports a game, then you can cite both sources, the reliable one and chessgames.com, and the chessgames.com source serves as a handy way for the reader to click through the game. But it's not good to use chessgames.com by itself as a source for a game. In saying this, I acknowledge that there are many violations of this rule in the chess articles in Wikipedia. But I think that the rule is generally acknowledged these days. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source for this, Purdy's Chess World magazine, is reproduced here by Winter. Every other source is a hand me down, possibly with embellishments. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that Castling was described in the Göttingen Manuscript, but does not directly reference it, neither does the article on the manuscript itself. I will go down to the University to check and add a reference to the manuscript if possible, but I cannot find any information on it in German. Catgirl-su (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Murray (there is a link in the bibliography of Chess that can be used for this), he notes (pp. 783-784) that the Göttingen Manuscript describes the "King's leap", which is not castling, but is an alternate version of it, whereby the rook moves to f1, and on the next move, the king leaps over it to g1. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I just plugged the Retrograde Analysis puzzle example on the page into an engine and assuming that White can castle and black can't, as evident by how the Rook is on d4, the page mentions that Rad1 doesn't work, however unless I'm missing something, it does because the position of the White King makes no difference. If the h2 Pawn wasn't there or it was Black's move, then sure, castling would make a difference, but since the pawn is there and it's White's move, there's no fundamental difference between the two according to the engine if Black cannot castle. I just thought I'd mention it before action is taken 81.87.12.66 (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a problem for engines, it concerns retrograde analysis conventions. If White plays 1.Rad1, by chess problem convention Black can castle. If White plays 1.0-0-0, White can prove that Black's king or rook has previously moved, therefore Black can't castle.

By the way sorry for not putting an explanation on my revert. If 2...Qd7 3.b8=Q+ wins even more material. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, on my other edit, okay that makes sense, although maybe that should be mentioned. On this one though? I'm not convinced. Why does 0-0-0 prove that Black cannot castle but Rad1 doesn't? Surely the other rook being in a location that isn't possible unless promoted prove otehrwise? Or are we saying that the rook was the orginal rook if White moved their king but Black didn't? Just trying to understand this 81.87.12.66 (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been explained. In chess problems, castling is legal unless it can be proved that it's illegal. This has nothing to do with normal chess play or FIDE rules or engines. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if White doesn't castle, then it is possible that the rook on d4 is the original rook from h1, in which case Black can castle and White can't. But if White does castle, then the rook on d4 is provably NOT the rook from h1, which means it must be promoted, and thus Black cannot castle. Edderiofer (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No error here. The convention in chess problems, summarised, is that castling is legal unless provable otherwise. If White plays 1.Rad1, then we cannot prove that Black cannot castle, so Black can castle. If White plays 1.O-O-O, however, then we can prove that Black cannot castle, so Black cannot castle. In short, the point of 1.O-O-O is to exploit this chess problem convention in order to invalidate Black's castling rights. Edderiofer (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rather than edit warring with someone who think they are a grammar expert I wanted to open this up to discussion. The line in question is my revision "if neither the king nor the rook ~~has~~ have moved" vs their version "if neither the king nor the rook has ~~have~~ moved." They offered a link to a source that to me appears to prove my version correct. I am here to have a discussion about this and get to bottom of who is right. Starzajo (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never said or implied am a "grammar expert", so your characterization amounts to an ad hominem personal attack. Knock it off, plz. But thx for opening this sec in lieu of another revert. --IHTS (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the ELB site:

When we use either…or and neither…nor, we present a choice between two different options. The suggestion is that one of these options will complete the action, so when we have a choice between two singular objects, the verb can only be done by one of them. Hence, though we have two nouns, the verb should then be singular:

* Either my mum or my dad is cooking dinner. (not are cooking)
* Neither the dog nor the cat eats cheese. (not eat cheese)

To me this clearly explains why singular verb is correct and can't see how you think it supports the opposite. The second example (re cheese) seems to be exact fit to our text. Now we need an experienced writer to settle. If am wrong you have my apology. --IHTS (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The versions you listed are identical. To clarify,

original text: Castling is permitted only if neither the king nor the rook has previously moved
your proposed change: Castling is permitted only if neither the king nor the rook have previously moved

Calling on Diannaa (talk · contribs)!? --IHTS (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, IHTS, I think Starzajo is correct. You aren't applying "either of these options will complete the action" correctly. It is emphatically not "if the king has not moved or the rook has not moved", it's "the king has not moved and the rook has not moved". The move can be done by either the king or the rook so there are two actions. "Have" seems to be the correct word here. Quale (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I shouldn't express any certainty here. In my view, the construction "neither the king nor the rook have/has moved" is akin to "both the king and the rook have not moved" and here "have" is clearly correct. ("Both ... have not" sounds awkward because of the negative but I think the grammar is sound.) But I can imagine that some or even most skilled writers might handle "either" and "neither" the same. Maybe it would be better to write "castling is not allowed if either the king or the rook has moved", since here there is definitely only a single action (a move) that can be completed by either the king or the rook. Quale (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely vote with IHTS here. When I see "neither", I switch into "singular" mode, and then when I see "have", which is plural here, it's distracting.

Quale's suggested rewrite would be grammatically correct. But you'd have to reorganize the bulleted list slightly, since it wouldn't be quite so parallel any more. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IHTS is the only member of WP:CHESS who knows or cares what the difference between an n-dash and an m-dash is. As such I'll defer to his grammar judgements. But "neither the king nor the rook" is totally a singular noun phrase. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User HolyT, who recently updated Chess strategy, appears very knowledgeable re grammar, especially sing. vs. pl. (see his Talk), so will ask here if he will weigh in on the verb issue above. (If so HolyT, thank you!) --IHTS (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ihardlythinkso, thank you for asking and pinging me! I am a technical writer and lifetime student of language and grammar (but an engineer and pilot by education and training). I didn't realize that there was an existing issue about this. If you're referring to the "if neither the king nor the rook has/have moved" question: Has is definitely correct in that sentence. The rule, historically, has been that the nearer subject must match the verb (when subjects are connected by or or nor): Does James or the twins want to watch the movie? Do we or Thomas like Thai food? Either you or he is required. Either he or you are required. Etc. I think that everyone has already sorted this out, but I'll also say that that sentence accurately explains the rule—the king and the rook BOTH must NOT have moved, which is communicated by "neither the king nor the rook has moved." If either the king has moved OR the rook has moved, then that condition is false, and castling is not permitted. Does that answer the questions at hand? Are you looking for a grammar reference? Cheers! Holy (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx so much for that. I believe that's plenty sufficient for the purpose here. Again, thanks so much! --IHTS (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously question the usefulness of including the part detailing castling-related mishaps while explaining the rules.

Firstly, in many of the examples, it seems like the mishap was not even caused by a misunderstanding of the rules of castling; overlooking or forgetting certain aspects of the current position (which some of the examples explicitly state is what happened) is not the same thing as not knowing the rules.

Now, for some of them, that might not apply. For example, for all I know, Nigel Short legitimately didn't know that castling through check is forbidden. But even in that case, hasn't the article already established by this point that you can't castle through check? It's been explained in the main text and in the caption of a diagram; we probably don't need to repeat it a third time. As for the mention of Alexander Beliavsky and Viktor Korchnoi, it is completely useless; there is no context whatsoever.

As far as I can tell, the only example that's relevant to the subsequent list of clarifications is the Yuri Averbakh incident, but I still don't think it accomplishes very much. The only takeaway for the reader is, "Oh, sometimes people think that you're prevented from castling if your rook would pass through a square attacked by your opponent, but that's not true." But if a list of clarifications were to tell you that your rook is allowed to pass through an opponent-controlled square during castling, then wouldn't you infer the previous statement anyway? This reminds me of how it works in the article "List of common misconceptions": there's no need to mention what the incorrect statement is, because the reader can figure it out by just taking the reverse of the correct statement.

When I first saw that this castling confusion part had been added to the article, I thought that it was added for comedic value, allowing the reader to have a laugh at the silliness and be comforted by the reminder that nobody's perfect. Based on the edit summaries provided by the person who wrote this part, it seems that I was correct. Of course, on its own, I take no issue with such an addition; it seems like the kind of thing that someone reading this article might find value in. However, I believe that it is completely out of place in its current location. If a reader is reading the "Rules" section in the "Castling" article just to learn the rules of castling, then the entire paragraph means absolutely nothing to them.

I propose that we simply move the information to a new section. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. First, you state the part is included "while explaining the rules". That's not correct; the part is included after explaining the rules. (As examples and explanations that clarify some common misunderstandings of the castling rule. Useful and logically placed text.) Second, your proposal to move to "a new section" is non-specific, so how can anyone fairly evaluate yes or no on that?! --IHTS (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't agree with having a separate section on misunderstandings of the castling rules, we can cover that in the rules section. Giving examples of high level players misunderstanding or temporarily forgetting the castling rules seems valid too. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I admit that I partly added these mishaps because they were funny (especially the Seirawan and Alekhine examples), but I also did it because I thought they made good illustrations of what the rules allow and do not allow. I agree with IHTS that it makes sense to put these clarifying examples immediately after the rules are stated. I admit that the weakest examples are those two funniest ones at the end, because I have to admit that I don't see how one could ever conclude from the rules that you can castle your queen or castle queenside with your rook on b1. But in spite of that, I've actually personally seen an attempted castling of the queen, so it seems worth explicitly noting it anyway. And my source (Robert Timmer's Startling Castling) astonishingly enough includes three games with a queenside castle with a rook on QN1, so clearly this problem is more widespread than I'd have imagined (though probably it stems from inaccurate piece placement on the board).

Incidentally, in one case (though not one that I mentioned), the illegal castling when the rook has moved and come back was done quite deliberately, by Alexey Dreev in a game against Kasparov (Startling Castling, p. 45) when he couldn't see any other way out of his bad position. And it went unpunished. But that was a blitz game, in which other curiosities often happen. As for other examples where it was probably done by accident: sure, but it seems to me that that's probably how most illegal castlings happen, isn't it?

I added the context for Beliavsky and Korchnoi (Beliavsky asked whether 0-0-0 was legal when b1 was attacked; Korchnoi whether 0-0 was legal when h1 was attacked). Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not take it for granted that the anecdotes in Timmer's book are accurately reported, nor that they even happened at all. In other words, how reliable is this reliable source? Unlike the Averbakh-Purdy incident, which has been making the rounds for decades, these new incidents are things I had never heard of before. I would be a lot more comfortable presenting these anecdotes, if they were "chess canon", rather than just some juicy stories. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that the Kasparov-Dreev example is from chessgames.com, which would not by itself be a reliable source, but is OK as a backup for Timmer. What about the others? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timmer provides the information for all of them. Korchnoi asking the arbiter is even in the article. I'll post the chessgames.com links later. Double sharp (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett: Here are all but one of the games:

• Beliavsky vs. Timman 1986 (where Beliavsky had to check if 16.0-0-0 was legal)
• Korchnoi vs. Karpov 1984 (where Korchnoi had to check if 18.0-0 was legal)
• Averbakh vs. Purdy 1960 (where Averbakh didn't believe that 14...0-0-0 was legal, and had to be convinced)
• Watson vs. Short 1983 (where Short played 24...0-0-0, which was pointed out to be illegal; he resigned instead, since the only legal king move 24...Kd7 loses)
• Illescas vs. Kamsky 1990 (where Kamsky tried to play 19...0-0-0, which was pointed out to be illegal, so 19...Kd8 was substituted)
• Kindermann vs. Korchnoi 1995 (where Korchnoi played 26...0-0 illegally, which was overlooked because of mutual time trouble; the game ended at move 47 when both flags fell; the arbiter, trying to reconstruct the game, noticed that 26...0-0 was illegal; technically they should've replayed the time scramble, but neither player wanted to, so they agreed to a draw)
• Torre vs. Réti 1925 (where Réti played 22...0-0-0, but found out that it was illegal, so 22...Kf8 was substituted)
• Alekhine vs. de Unamuno 1944 (where Alekhine "castled the queen" on move 11; since he moved the rook first, the move that stood was 11.Rc1)

Unfortunately, I cannot find the Seirawan game at chessgames.com. However, Timmer provides a partial game score and claims that he received the information from Seirawan himself: During the Interzonal tournament in Biel 1993 I casually told Yasser Seirawan that I was working on a book about castling. He remembered very well that as a sixteen-year-old boy he accidentally had tried to castle in precisely the same way!. It is Seirawan vs. Fullbrook, Oregon op Ch (Portland), 1976: 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 c6 5.d4 e4 6.Bg5 Be7 7.e3 d6 8.h4 Be6 9.Bf1 Nbd7 10.Nh3 Bf7 11.Be2 Qb6 12.Rb1 h6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.h5 c5 15.dxc5 dxc5 16.Qb3 Qxb3 17.axb3 Be5 18.Nf4 Nf6 and here White tried to play 19.0-0-0, only to be informed by his opponent that it was illegal. So instead followed 19.Kd2 0-0-0+ 20.Kc2 Rd7 21.Rbd1 Rhd8 22.Rxd7 Rxd7 23.Ng2 with a sort of artificial queenside castling. Timmer breaks the game off here, but remarks that White won after 27 more moves.

Incidentally, it seems to me that Korchnoi vs. Karpov 1984 is also a well-known incident. Double sharp (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is good, I am happy with using Timmer as the reliable source here.

The implications are interesting. My whole view of bogus-castling attempts has to shift. I do not remember ever seeing one in my whole long amateur career (well below grandmaster level). So I thought that Averbakh-Purdy was one of a kind; but obviously it isn't. Wiki is now no longer dependent on one 70-year-old incident for the statement that "even grandmasters make this error".

This is somewhat orthogonal to the original question, of where to put these incidents, and what subsections and sections to create. Perhaps some of the incidents are only good for "comedic value", while others might even be helpful for explaining the nuances of the rules. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In view of all these examples, a section on "misunderstandings of castling rules" under "examples" may be justified. But the rules section should just explain the rules and clarify common misunderstandings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article references the 5th edition of the USCF rule book, this is out dated, as rule 10I2 was added in the 7th edition.

10I2. Rook touched first. If a player intending to castle touches the rook first, castling is not allowed and the player must move the rook as required by rule 10B.

Though it also allows for a TD to implement a variation where the rook can be touched first.

https://new.uschess.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/us-chess-rule-book-online-only-edition-chapters-1-2-9-10-11-2024.pdf ExpletiveDeleted617 (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]