USCF Rule 14F disagrees with the Gothic description of the 50 Move rule, because the USCF rule makes no mention of castling.
The Gothic rule has no intention of being different from the traditional chess rule.
The Gothic description of the rule relies heavily on the concept of an “irreversible” move, which is more elegant. But it raises the question of whether castling resets the 50 move counter in traditional chess.
QUESTION:
So, in traditional chess, does castling reset the 50 move counter or not?
.
I was always told that the 50 move rule is based on 50 moves by both players without a capture or pawn move. I’ve never heard of castling affecting it.
I have to agree with Martinak and Fromper. However…
I think the Gothic unifying concept of “irreversibility” is cleaner, clearer, simpler, and more in tune with the spirit of why some moves do reset the counter. Castling is a form of ‘progress’.
I’m not sure the way the Gothic Chess site rule is being interpreted here eliminates all irreversibility effects.
Suppose neither the King nor the Rook have moved yet. Moving one of them is the same as castling from the standpoint of it being irreversible, since moving that piece back to its original square does not restore the right to castle.
Therefore, under this interpretation of the 50 move rule (which I believe is NOT consistent with USCF or FIDE rules), moving the king or a rook for the first time should also reset the move counter.
To make matters worse, one could move the king rook and subsequently return it to its original square but retain the right to castle queenside.
I think I prefer the ‘no pawn moves or captures’ rule, it is far simpler to explain, despite what the Gothic Chess site says.
I am not sure if the above is a joke, but, in case it isn’t, the fact is that, after castling, no amount of moves can ever get back to a position where castling is possible.
The Gothic chess rule also seems to indicate that a draw can be claimed even if only one of the players has made 50 consecutive irreversible moves. That is much different than FIDE and USCF rules.
The Gothic chess rule does not recognize that another type of irreversible move is declining to capture en passant when it is available.
I think the Gothic chess inventor misunderstood the real intent of the 50 move rule. In my opinion, it exists as a means of providing relief in a game where neither player can make progress (either due to lack of skill on one or both player’s part or because there is no play in the position) but one of the players won’t agree to a draw. Irreversible moves really have no bearing on this, it’s just somewhat coincidental that the types of moves that often indicate some progress might have been made (i.e. the capture of an opponent’s piece or the advance of a pawn) happen to be irreversible. The Gothic chess inventor probably noticed this, and thought that he could more cleverly define the 50 move rule. I think the rule as us real chess players know it is much better, and perfectly clear as worded in the USCF rules.
[1] Excellent point about “declining to capture in-passing”. It is a technicality because a pawn has just moved, so declining resets the ply counter only when the counter is 1 (never when it nears its max of 100).
Technicality or not, your’s is a correct technicality.
[2] If our game is nearing invocation of the 50 “move” draw rule, but then I finally force your to lose you right to castle long, then I have accomplished a reduction in your mobilities and options. That deserves to be categorized as “progress”.
Therefore I cannot accept the argument that irreversibility is merely a coincidence. Anything irreversible is progress.
.
And, as with most suggestions aimed at “simplifying” the rules, this one ends up complicating matters, once the various ramifications are realized and dealt with.
Well, I agree with Steve to a point, with the notable exception about the castling move is not in the standard 50 move rule but then the Gothic rules add that in specifically. en passant is rather a moot point since the move just before it could be executed was a pawn move and just reset the counter.
On the other hand:
“irreversible” = plus definitions and examples
“without a pawn move or piece capture” = self explanatory
That negates making it a “shorter” rule.
But the idea of irreversible and reversible moves is interesting in and of itself.
I don’t see how castling would have any impact on the 50 move rule. It doesn’t involve a pawn move or a capture. I think the USCF rule is simpler to explain. Reversible and irreversible muddy the issue because of castling. Though I don’t think I’ve played many games that have ended because of the 50 move rule and still have a player with castling rights or having castled during the 50 moves.
Bill, please explain how you can undo castling in 3 moves in ANY situation, eg, getting the rook back to h1 and the king back to e1. I think it will take you 5 or more moves, depending on whether there is a pawn on f2, ie, Rf2…Kf1…Ke1…Rf1…Rh1.
Steve, it isn’t simplifying anything if it then requires 2-3 paragraphs to explain what an irreversible move is. 'No pawn moves and no captures" is both succinct and unambiguous.