A portion of rule 14C states: “In both cases, the position is considered the same if pieces of the same kind and color occupy the same squares and if the possible moves of all the pieces are the same, including the right to castle”.
Several years ago the following game was played in a tournament I directed:
1 e4 e6 2 Nc3 d5 3 d4 Nf6 4 Bg5 Bb4 5 e5 h6 6 Bd2 Bc3 7 bc Ne4 8 Qg4 g6 9 Nf3 c5 10 h4 Nc6 11 Bd3 Nd2 12 Kd2 Bd7 13 Qf4 Qa5 14 Qf6 Rg8 15 h5 g5 16 Ng5 Rg5 17 Qh8+ Ke7 18 Qf6+ Ke8 19 Qh8+ Ke7 20 Qf6+ Ke8 and a draw by 3-fold was claimed.
My question is on the interpretation of the rule. After moves 16, 18, and 20 the same position was on the board. Black was temporarily prevented from castling queen-side on move 16. Black was permanently prevented from castling at moves 18 and 20.
Should a properly claimed 3-fold draw after 20…Ke8 be upheld or does the loss of potential castling change “the right to castle” mean the position has only occurred twice?
White’s pawn is on d5, now black plays c7-c5. Other pieces move, but 2 and 4 move-pairs later, the same position to move for white is achieved. No repetition then. White couldn’t capture en passant in the two later identical positions.
I would suspect that the immediate move potential is what matters.
I haven’t gone over your game, Harold. As long as the player couldn’t castle kingside in the first position, the potential immediate moves are the same. Yes, repetition. He didn’t have the right to castle in all three positions.
That’s covered in 14C, which expilcitly mentions en passant capture. The claim would be invalid because “the possible moves of all the pieces” are not the same in each position. I’m not sure of the answer to Harold’s question.
Yes, it should. Black would not have the right to castle, if it were his move, after 16, 18, or 20, and the only difference is that there would be two reasons for this after moves 18 and 20, but only one reason for it (i.e., inability to castle through check) after move 16.
The 14C rule considers possible moves in an immediate timeframe/opportunity. I see no reason not to use the same immediate timeframe/opportunity for Harold’s problem.
The same “principle” is being used for a relative rule, where the rulebook does not specify. If the rulebook had to answer every problem, no one would start out to be a certified tournament director. We are still here to promote chess.
That’s plausible, but not completely dispositive. The question is whether “lost the right to castle or capture en passant” means “permanently lost.” As I said, I’m not certain.
“Right” is a poor word for chess moves. “Right” is normally used in terms of protection: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…
Would you say that you have “the right” to play e2-e4 on the first move, but lost “the right” to play it again during the rest of the game? No. Basic pawn moves just aren’t expressed in that way.
The next edition should avoid the word in this context. The rules have always been a work in progress.
14C, p. 43: “In both cases, the position is considered the same if pieces of the same kind and color occupy the same squares and if the possible moves of all the pieces are the same, including the right to castle.” Argue with the Rulebook, not with me.
I posted this game because I ruled the game in 1984 to be a draw. The next day another player in the tournament suggested that I had made an incorrect ruling because black could not castle queen-side at move 18 or 20. At the time, I admitted that I had forgotten about the portion of the rule about en passant and castling and made an incorrect ruling. White could have repeated it again if necessary.
Yesterday, I went back to look at this game and realized that black couldn’t castle at move 16 either. The wording in the 1978 rule book (in effect in 1984) is the same as the most recent rule book.
I’ve gone from thinking I ruled correctly to incorrectly to not sure. Right or wrong, this 26-year-old game has made me remember every time since, that I must also consider the available moves. As far as I know, this is the only game in 34 years of directing in which I was asked to rule on a 3-fold, that it was a consideration.
After playing over the game and giving it more thought, I now tend to believe that your original ruling (claim upheld) was correct. The wording of the rule is “if pieces of the same kind and color occupy the same squares and if the possible moves of all the pieces are the same, including the right to castle.” Black could not legally play 0-0-0 in any of the three positions. It’s possible to debate this, though, if you want to construe “right to castle” as “right to castle now or at some future time.” I suppose the Rules Committee ought to clarify this some day.
Time to fall back on procedure… Does the other player agree to the draw offer created by the threefold claim? If so, no issue to settle.
I can see how it could be ruled either way, and how a TD might interpret the difference between temporary and permanent castling as a change of castling rights. But to me it also comes down to what possible moves can be made in the given position, then-and-there for next move.
That is consistent with rule on reversed-piece placement. It doesn’t matter if the knights are reversed because the focus is on what moves are available to the player. Thus likewise it doesn’t matter if the right to castle was temporarily or permanently impaired - the focus is that the player cannot make the castling move in all three positions. Or one could say the castling right was impaired in all three positions.
I was going to say that on the other hand it probably doesn’t matter if White had to repeat one more time, but then I was reminded by the Oxford Companion that repetitions are sometimes engaged in to close out a time control. (What if the next control starts and then the other player has time to think…)
I’m not arguing with you, but with the rulebook. And that’s what NTDs do, and that’s how rules develope. What is the condition on the board? If someone wants to add, “or in the future”, that person is adding words to the rulebook, not interpreting.
“Including the ability to castle”, would be more consistent with the discription of piece movement throughout the rulebook. Something written by humans, can always have a word out of place.
The rulebook is a list of intructions, trying to cover an infinite set of possibilities. Of course, that cannot be done! The method of judgement is what matters. I wouldn’t even discuss this, were it a hypothetical situation offered.
As I recall, black did object, but not about the castling part. It was about how many times the position occurred. When I demonstrated the position was the same after 16, 18, and 20, he then agreed it was a draw. As it was white that made the claim, that would indicate that he was satisfied with half a point. I asked Fritz and Fritz said that black’s best move was to repeat. Black was an IM so I assume he wasn’t repeating to get closer to the time control which was 45/150.
At this time, I’m leaning towards having initially gotten it right, but I’m having doubts. Up until yesterday when I played over the game, I thought I got it wrong.
Interest point, but it is inaccurate. To castle (a verb), every condition must be met to have “the right” to take the action. This is the same as having “the right” to capture something on the board. There are many conditions to be able to castle with no exceptions! At the start of the game, they are not all met.
Again, “ability” would be more accurate than “right”.
Interestingly, the FIDE Laws of Chess get a little closer but are not completely tight either.
3.8(b) differentiates between losing the right to castle and castling being prevented temporarily.
Right to castle, as has been pointed out = future
Temporarily prevented by not meeting all castling conditions, castling not a possible move = present
USCF 14C differs from 9.2 very slightly; “including the right to castle” is not included in the FIDE law. However, FIDE does add a clarification about when castling rights are lost when considering this rule (AFTER rook or king have moved), presumably to handle cases when the only legal moves lose the right.
So it seems that the intention in both rules is to include the right to castle and not only temporary prevention in considering whether the position is equal or not.
Therefore, the ruling would not be correct if this interpretation is right.
Joe, according to the rules (both USCF and FIDE) you start the game with the right. You can only lose the right if you move king or rook, by the definition given. You don’t gain and lose the right based on whether you are able to castle.
I can think of at least another circumstance when you lose the right to castle. You lose the right to castle when your rook is captured, even if it never moved. If the FIDE rules are to be taken literally, then a player can move his king two squares with a phantom rook.
As 14C is worded, if the “right to castle” means one thing and “the possible moves of all the pieces are the same” means another, then I think this rule needs to be clarified.
