Here is the position in question so that all can see:
If you claim that moving the rook to f1 determines immediate stalemate, you are fine under the FIDE rule, but you are jumping the gun under the USCF rule.
Note that the proposed new wording of the rule regarding determined (or executed) moves says:
(a) "A regular move is executed when … "
and
(b) "Castling is executed when … "
Under the USCF rule, at the moment after white has physically moved the rook to f1, it is not yet clear which type of move – regular or castling – white was in the process of executing. Therefore, it is premature to invoke (a) and claim stalemate.
Bill Smythe
To include a chess diagram in your message, you can go to
then set up the desired position on the black-and-white board on the left side of the screen, then transfer it to the board on the right side via “Update Diagram”. Finally, copy and paste the resulting “http://” line at the top of the screen into your message, surrounding it with and after you paste. (I have used angle braces <> to keep the software from going nuts, you’ll have to change it to square brackets [].) Somebody on this forum pointed me to this nice little website a few years ago.
By the way, does anybody know of a similar (free) website to do the same thing with sudoku and kakuro diagrams? That would be awesome.
By the way, this position could not possibly arise by any sequence of legal moves. If white may castle in this position, then the white king has never left e1. There is then no legal way the black king could have reached e3.
As I read rule 10I2 , under the current rules it appears to depend on the player’s intention:
True, this rule doesn’t explicitly say that releasing the rook on f1 determines the move Rf1 unless the player intended to castle, but I think that’s a fair reading of the rule in light of rule 1A. Maybe the rule could be similar or could be made more explicit in your proposed rules.
Action A is executed when step 1 is performed.
Action B is executed when step 1 and step 2 are performed in that order.
Only one of Action A or B can be performed.
The problem is exactly the “not yet clear” phase. How long would it be acceptable for the king to not be moved before it’s considered not-castling? Essentially instantaneous with no eye movement beyond the king/rook… OK, that seems clear cut. The player moves the rook, looks at the opposing king for 1/2 a second and then moves his king? Hmm. The player moves the rook, sighs, then his eyes widen and he moves his king… uhoh.
True. The FIDE version has the advantage of avoiding ambiguity, but the disadvantage of forcing a player to move just the rook even if his intention to castle was obvious.
Sure, but is this so bad? Surely players can learn that castles is a King move and that if they don’t want to be required to move the rook, they need to move the King first. They have to learn to do this if they play in FIDE competitions. So who is the audience which is being pandered to by keeping the rule as it is? Not scholastic players, because for them learning the touch-move rule for castling is just another rule to learn. Not top players who play in FIDE events, because they have to learn it anyway. So, its the people in the middle who we insist on treating as old dogs who cannot learn new tricks (though most of them probably move the King first when castling already.)
I think we could eventually transition to the FIDE castling rule without upsetting anybody if we did it very gradually. In the next version of the rulebook, we could put in a rule saying that touching the rook first when castling is illegal, but that the maximum penalty is 2 minutes added to the opponent’s clock. Up the penalty with the next version of the rule book. Finally, outlaw it completely in the 8th edition. Sure, that’s probably 2 decades (or more) from now, but at least we’re moving in the right direction. Over time, this will eventually cease to be a problem, it’ll just take a while.
What would happen if the castling rule remained unchangedl? Would we be swamped with even more of the “Rf1 (stalemate) vs. O-O (White wins)” disputes than we have now?
I hope that all serious junior players are trained to move the king first, but for all I know they’re being taught bad habits from our older, established players that refuse to give up the bad habits themselves. So “what would happen” is that young players could develop bad habits by imitating older players that could cost them games when they play under FIDE rules. I just don’t see any justification for permanently keeping our rule different from FIDE’s. There are good arguments for keeping some of our rules different even over a long term. This rule isn’t one of those rules.
After imitating all the older, established players who move their Rooks first when castling, the serious junior players are going to be in for quite a shock when they play in a tournament where the players move their Kings first when castling.
Strangely, about the only players I have ever seen castle by moving the rook first are Eastern European players, who presumably grew up with FIDE rules.
Some Eastern European players and Russians castle by grabbing both R and K simultaneously, or almost at the same time when castling. Even when someone grabs the rook first, they do not call each other on it. That would be considered a trivial and dishonorable thing to call and would lead to a big argument. The player making such a call would be looked on as a real **************, creating bad feelings that would carry over into the future, or at least into the hallway. I have seen a Russian smack another one for a small act of gamesmanship.
Note that in quick and blitz it is an advantage in time for a player with the Black pieces to move the R first, then the K, and then hit the clock. Unless you are left handed.
I do not know a single coach who teaches his kids any other method but to move the King first when castling. The only kids I have seen call this rule are teenagers who are trying to rattle their opponents by starting an argument during a game.
