[Retros] fractional moves: to be or not to be

[raosorio at fibertel.com.ar]

Hi Guus,
Let's see what Geurt concludes.

Meantime, I think your propossal is very interesting.

"7.4.a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move.... has been 
completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be 
reinstated. .... Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal 
move. " 

What does "..completed" mean in this context?
Ke1-g1 is not an illegal move but an ongoing move, until the clock is pressed
(when castling is posible and legal).
So, as you suggest, the "irregularity" would be not  Ke1-g1 but the clock pressing
(the only fact that makes Ke1-g1 to be a "..completed" illegal move).

This would lead to your point, but the problem is the unhappy phrase
".... Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal move. " .

It seems that it should be "..Article 4 applies...", opening the alternatives 4.3 and 4.6
depending on the case.

Best,
Roberto Osorio






-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Roberto, 

Interesting to get Geurt's comment on this topic; the world of 
composition meets the world of play. 

There is another way to interpret 7.4a "the position immediately before 
the irregularity shall be reinstated". If one conceives that the 
irregularly only started AFTER playing Ke1-g1, more precisely at the 
time the clock was pressed, then the referee might decide to restore the 
conditions after Ke1-g1 and demand that the player completes the 
castling move. 

Best, Guus Rol. 



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- 
Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] Namens 
raosorio at fibertel.com.ar 
Verzonden: woensdag 20 februari 2008 21:10 
Aan: retros at janko.at 
CC: geurtgijssen at chesscafe.com 
Onderwerp: [Retros] fractional moves: to be or not to be 


Hi retrofriends and Geurt, 

I'm sending this with copy to the Retro mailing List and to the chess 
caffe. 

On january 30th I made the following question, 

"If 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? " 

Then I found article 4.6, 

"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. 
b. in the case of castling, .... 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; " 

I concluded that time that this answered all the questions, forcing in 
any case to castle. But I got another surprisse in my project related to 
ilegal situations. Art. 4.6 applies in the half move situation (the 
player has not pressed the clock) but in the case the player pressed the 
clock, then he made an ilegal move and the situation is governed by the 
article 7.4.a., 

"7.4.a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move.... has been 
completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be 
reinstated. .... Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal 
move. " 

Then, in this case the move after the illegality is restricted by 4.3 
instead by 4.6?! The 4.3 is the "touched piece" article so the player is 
just forced to move the king freely, not to make castling. 

Let's imagine the following situation, 

I'm in the turn to move and I have doubts: is it better to play O-O or 
Kd1? Then, being an expert on the fine details of the Laws, I move 
Ke1-g1 to have a look of this alternative a half move forward. My 
opponent claims and the arbiter comes and, before he asked me to 
complete the castling, I press the clock (I found that Kd1 was better). 
Consequences? A couple of minutes. Piece of cake! 

Am I missing something here? 

Roberto Osorio 
ARGENTINA