[Retros] Article 4.6 (are the King and the Rook....?)

[raosorio at fibertel.com.ar]

Hi Jonathan,

When I asked the question (Is white forced to move the king freely or he's forced to castle? ) I had
in mind the same answer as you, but the common sense was torturing my mind indicating that
the answer should be the opposite.

I got another surprisse: look at this article,

4.6  When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square. The move is considered to have been made when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled. 

4.6 b) ..... When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal; 

So, for both cases,
a) the player moved his King from e1 to g1 and stopped (pressed his clock), then this is an iilegal
move that has to be retracted but just to complete the castling

b) the player moved his King from e1 to g1 without finishing (he didn't press the clock), then the
situation is legal, say that he made half a legal move, and he is forced to complete the castling.

An equivalent  situation would be produced by an e.p. capture if the player makes the diagonal
movement with his pawn without capturing the other side's pawn. However, this is not explicitely
explained as 4.6b) does for the castling case. In fact, the particular explanations are not necessary
at all after the general 4.6 statement, but why for castling and not for e.p.? These Laws are plenty
of inconsistencies.

I understand article 4 not as a penalties one, but one trying to keep the game development as clean
of disturbations as posible. Say, if a player makes an illegal move, the idea is to constrain his move
to be a legal one as similar as posible to the illegal one. So, the constrains are not penalties but a
way to "let's keep all what happened during the game as contained by article 3 as posible"

Within this spirit, the idea of forcing the rook to move (when an illegal castling has been made and
the king has no legal move) is reinforced (opposite to the 4.4 statement).

best,
Roberto
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A J Mestel A.J.Mestel at damtp.cam.ac.uk 
Thu Jan 31 04:30:32 EST 2008 

Previous message: [Retros] Are the King and the Rook pieces or what? 
Next message: [Retros] Are the King and the Rook pieces or what? 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could not make me castle rather than play Kf1 if I accidentally played 
1 Kg1. However, if I played 1 Rf1 and stopped (pressed my clock) I don't 
think I would be allowed to rectify my mistake saying I meant to castle. 

If I play Kg1 and press my clock that counts as an illegal move and I must 
make any K move, including 0-0-0 I suppose. 

So here's my contribution: 

W Ke1 Rh1 Qd4 Rg5 I play 1 Rf1 (intending to castle) but the game is over 
because it's mate...or is it? My move isn't complete, but how do you know 
that? I don't have to press my clock after a mating move, but until I do 
my move isn't complete... 

Every now and again they change the rules so that you have to move your 
king first when castling, but then they change it back. 

Jonathan 



On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, raosorio at fibertel.com.ar wrote: 



> Dear retrofirends, 



> 



> Many thanks for the clever discussions on this point. These are very useful to 



> clarify my mind in the project which I'm involved toghether with Sergio Orce and 



> Jorge Lois (Peña del Mate de Ayuda, Argentine Chess Club). 



> 



> this project would be to define "Minimal Deviation from the Rules" (MDR) as an extended 



> space for compositions where a last (and just last ) illegal move in the diagram is 



> accepted. This illegal move would be of MDR type (say, geometrically correct) and 



> the problems would create puzzles and paradoxes to find that move and its consequences. 



> all the above strcictly contained in the CODE. 



> 



> A furhter question on the castling case. I the wK is standing on e1 and a wR on h1, castling 



> is legal and posible but the player conducing the white side moves the King to g1 and that's 



> it, he stops there. This move is illegal, but it's also a half legal move. Is white forced to move 



> the king freely or he's forced to castle? 



> 



> Best, 



> Roberto