Maybe it is time for the Castling experiment to be over with. Go back to the old way. If you want to Castle you have to do it the hard way. This will have multiple advantages. First off this rule becomes defunct. Second it will cut down on the number of draws (that some people don’t seem to care for) It will change the whole nature of Opening theory. It will revitalize the game and newcomers will join the USCF in Droves. (not sure what a Drove is but I think it might simply be a building where people play chess) Do I need to add
No.
The more general case is that a player is supposed to hit the clock with the same hand that moved the piece(s).
The rule says that the king must be touched first. It doesn’t say that it has to be placed before the rook is touched.
The TD must be available for pretty much any claim. How the claim is handled might vary depending upon the temperament of the TD. 
.
What if…
“The player can castle in any manner, including touching his rook before touching his king, as long as the player does not determine any other move before he finally determines the castling move.”
I would like to understand any clever scenario that makes the above simplicity fail.
.
Too complicated. Why can’t the player just simply castle properly and be done with it? Seriously?
All I know is:
- It is unwise to attempt to castle by touching the rook first.
- It is unconscionably poor sportsmanship to object to an opponent castling by touching the rook first.
- Therefore, if a player behaves wisely and exhibits proper sportsmanship, he or she does not need to know which castling rule is in effect.
Bill Smythe
When in the past did the USCF ever require that the king be touched first? I only have copies of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of the USCF rulebook, and touching the rook first was allowed in all of them.
Bob
I think there was once a thin green pamphlet, entitled “USCF rules of chess” or something similar, which came out after the big Harkness book and before the 1st (Morrison) rulebook.
Bill Smythe
I’ve dealt with a relatively recent live situation in a high-profile USCF event where this language would not work.
A player went to castle, rook-first, and realized - prior to touching the king - that the king would be “castling into it”. So, he sat and stared at the board, with his rook having moved from h1 to f1, for about a minute before picking up his king and completing his castling move. The opponent, who was a foreign player, objected based on FLC 4.4.b. I explained that, since the section he was playing in was not used for FIDE norms, USCF Rule 10I2 allowed his opponent to castle rook first. Under that language, if castling is legal in the position, then the opponent has not determined a move, even though he’s clearly moved and released a piece. This seems highly illogical to me - not to mention, rife with opportunities for gamesmanship.
The differing rule also does our up-and-coming players no favors either, as they transition into FIDE-rated events.
In the same event as the first situation I mentioned, a young piranha circling the waters of the Open section went to castle rook first. His alert opponent stopped the clock and said the player had to move the rook. Instant brouhaha, complete with helicopter parents. Since this section offered norm possibilities, the FLC was in effect. I advised the offending lad that he’d have to play …Ra8-d8. His parents were not pleased, but c’est la vie.
Even under 10I2, if the player dawdles about moving his king, he is stuck with just moving the rook. Waiting a minute before moving the king to complete castling is a long time. How does the other player know if his opponent just forgot to press his clock?
Unfortunately, there is no such “dawdling” provision attached to USCF Rule 10I2. The move is not determined in rook-first castling scenarios under that rule until either the clock is pressed or the player completes the castling maneuver.
Fortunately, that will become moot as of January 1, 2015 (except for organizers who choose to announce the variant).
With all of the responses on this topic, it seems that when it comes to castling by touching the rook first “intent” has been ignored even though the word or variants have been used in other rules as part of the reasoning.
Is there anyone looking at this rule who does not see that a player who moves his rook next to the king and then immediately jumps his king over the rook had only the intent of castling? Surely no player or director would think a player that did this had any intentions to cheat by making 2 moves in a row with the second being illegal.
It’s a good idea whenever possible to make rules that do not require the TD to discern intent.
If a TD cannot “discern intent” when a player moves a rook next to the king and then immediately moves the king 2 squares to the opposite side of the rook, then that TD’s knowledge of the game is questionable at best.
Is there anyone reading this that if they witnessed what I just described, would suggest that the intent to castle was not obvious?
How do you define ‘immediately’? Is a 10 second pause before moving the king immediate or not? What about a 5 second pause?
If the hand goes from releasing the rook directly to touching the king (usually less than 1 second) I would call that “immediately”. 5 to 10 seconds seems too long unless that player has some type of handicap.
That still means this is a judgement call. And an unnecessary one if the player is taught to move the king first, as I was over 50 years ago, some 7 years before I even heard of the USCF.
I cannot reconcile this with what Geurt Gijssen has written on ChessCafe.com.
Regardless of whether White might be “intending” to castle short…
If White begins his move by moving his h1-Root to f1 and releasing the rook on f1, the instant White releases his rook Black is legally allowed to quickly make a reply move.
Black has this right regardless of whether White has pressed White’s clock after releasing White’s rook on f1, and of course regardless of whether White has yet touched White’s king.
So at least I would add item A to your list (B C):
A. Black touches any piece to start his move as a reply to Rh1-f1.
B. White presses White’s clock.
C. White fully finishes moving and releasing the rook and king to castle.
Crucial is whether White releases his rook on f1 before versus after White touches White’s king.
Unfortunately some discussions in this thread are unclear whether the poster is making this crucial before vs after distinction.
No rule should allow castling after the rook is released if the king has not yet been touched.
.
I interpret the event description as meaning the White player did release his rook on f1 before he touched his king.
Under that interpretation this particular event violates my rule phrasing because White determined his rook move before touching his king.
This thread debate seems more like whether it is possible to determine a move yet continue on to determine a modification of that move. I believe it is not possible.
(For correct terminology, I thought I read that ‘determining’ a move involves just the pieces on the board; whereas ‘completing’ a move adds in the clock press. I think.)
.