This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Castling article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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?
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)
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)
The article notes that in queen-side castling
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Is it true that the rook cannot be under attack after castling in order for castling to work? -- Jordan 21:29, 7 August 2006
Rule #5 in the Requirements links to a footnote that already contradicts Rule #2. Any comments?? Georgia guy 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Redircted Castling on opposite sides here. Section to be created. SunCreator ( talk) 13:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Castling. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Castling at the Reference desk. |
Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.166.224 ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 22 April 2011
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)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Castling. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Castling at the Reference desk. |
Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Castling. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Castling at the Reference desk. |
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)
is queenside castling possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.49.21 ( talk) 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I propose to merge Artificial castling into Castling. Artificial castling isn't really a concept independent of castling, resulting in significant WP:OVERLAP between the two articles. The artificial castling article short enough to easily fit as a section within Castling. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Hey User:MaxBrowne2, most of your changes are legitimately nonsensical.
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)
User:MaxBrowne2, I wish to discuss some things.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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)
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
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)
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)
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.
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Castling article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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?
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)
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)
The article notes that in queen-side castling
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Is it true that the rook cannot be under attack after castling in order for castling to work? -- Jordan 21:29, 7 August 2006
Rule #5 in the Requirements links to a footnote that already contradicts Rule #2. Any comments?? Georgia guy 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Redircted Castling on opposite sides here. Section to be created. SunCreator ( talk) 13:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Castling. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Castling at the Reference desk. |
Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.166.224 ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 22 April 2011
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)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Castling. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Castling at the Reference desk. |
Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Castling. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Castling at the Reference desk. |
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)
is queenside castling possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.49.21 ( talk) 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I propose to merge Artificial castling into Castling. Artificial castling isn't really a concept independent of castling, resulting in significant WP:OVERLAP between the two articles. The artificial castling article short enough to easily fit as a section within Castling. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Hey User:MaxBrowne2, most of your changes are legitimately nonsensical.
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)
User:MaxBrowne2, I wish to discuss some things.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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)
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
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)
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)
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.
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)