[Retros] Are the King and the Rook pieces or what?

[Rol, Guus]

I'd find it hard to identify an "intent to castle" without even having
the legal possibility to castle. E.g., is there a difference between
"Ke1 having moved earlier in the game eliminating 0-0" and "a black
bishop threatening f1 thus preventing 0-0"? Or worse, when I touch Ke1
and Ra1 simulataneously with the left side completely undeveloped, does
that show "intent to play 0-0-0" - merely having overlooked the
interfering Q, B and N? If there is a line to be drawn here, where is it
and why is it not in the rules? I do hope that the precise formal
criteria are not hidden somewhere in the jurisprudence, where they are
practically inaccessible to the players.
 
Anyway, my view is that there are no grades in illegality and that all
positions where castling is illegal should be treated equally with
regard to the touch-pieces rules. Article 4.4 first creates an
exemption, and subsequently fails to resolve it cleanly. Count on FIDE
to disturb the peace whenever it can.
 
Guus Rol.
 

________________________________

Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] Namens
Pastmaker at aol.com
Verzonden: zondag 27 januari 2008 16:31
Aan: retros at janko.at
Onderwerp: Re: [Retros] Are the King and the Rook pieces or what?



Friends,

The soution to the inconsistency hinges on the phrase "intending to
castle".  That intent takes the action out of the scope of the earlier
rule.  As to how the intent is established, I suppose we have the usual
body of jurisprudence.

Most professional basketball players can easily castle with one hand.

Regards,
Tom


**************
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20080128/6c3dbb10/attachment.htm>