Can player castle OO after illegal OOO ?

[GeneM]

.
[fen]r4k1r/1bp1bp2/2q1p1pp/p1p1P3/P1Pp1N2/1P1R1PQ1/2P2BPP/4R1K1 b - - 0 23[/fen]

Torre Repetto,Carlos - Reti,Richard 1925

---

After 23. Rd1-d3, Black castled long OOO. But OOO was illegal because Black’s a8 rook had already moved twice during the game. Reti as Black put his king and rook back on e8 and a8.
Now…
Given the touch move rule…

Question: Can Black proceed to castle short OO, or would OO be illegal because Black is required to move ONLY his king?

The argument is that Black’s h8 rook was not involved in the original touching of pieces, so it is too late to add the h8 rook now to the move. Adding in the h8 rook now is like half defying or defeating the touch move rule.

There are two levels to this question:
A. The actual current rule verbiage; and
B. What we feel as the spirit of the touch move principle.

Personally I could lean either way on the spirit question, although I tend to lean toward disallowing OO.
Are there differences of opinion on what the spirit of the touch move principle tend to recommend for this ruling?
.

[William_H_Stokes]

If Reti touched the king first he is allowed to castle kingside. If he touched the rook first he would have to move the rook. The rules do not say anything about castling involving touching the king and rook simultaneously, so the illegal move (queenside castling) would have to be replaced with a king move or kingside castling. I think the rules are written in such a way to take “spirit” out of this question.

The latest update to the rules support what I wrote. The King must be touched first when castling but a variation where the rook is touched first is allowed.

[dfan]

A. Letter of the law: Yes, he can.

USCF rule 10I1:

If a player intending to castle touches the king first, or king and rook at the same time, and then realizes that castling is illegal, the player may choose either to move the king or to castle on the other side if legal. If the king has no legal move, the player is free to choose any move.

FIDE rule 4.4c:

If a player having the move, intending to castle, touches the king and then a rook, but castling with this rook is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his king (which may include castling with the other rook).

B. Spirit of the law: Of course he can. He touched his king, so he has to move his king, and castling is a move that moves his king.

[relyea]

I agree with Messrs. Schmidt and Stokes, and frankly don’t understand how anyone could disagree.

Alex Relyea

[jwiewel]

@relyea

I agree with Messrs. Schmidt and Stokes, and frankly don’t understand how anyone could disagree.

Alex Relyea

If the 0-0-0 move with a previously moved a-file rook was done incorrectly with K → d-file and R → e-file then the releasing of the K on the d-file (if legal) should be considered the entire move with 0-0 not an option (of course, the releasing of the K on the d-file should also be considered the entire move even if 0-0-0 would have been a legal move).

PS Barring that silliness. I agree with Alex.

[relyea]

@jwiewel

If the 0-0-0 move with a previously moved a-file rook was done incorrectly with K → d-file and R → e-file then the releasing of the K on the d-file (if legal) should be considered the entire move with 0-0 not an option (of course, the releasing of the K on the d-file should also be considered the entire move even if 0-0-0 would have been a legal move).

Well, yes. Any legal move, no matter how unfortunate, stands/

Alex Relyea