I’m not certain that Mr. Relyea’s disagreement here is with me.
Amen, and simply another unfortunate rule change that I will need to
announce necessary variations to at each and every tournament. The
list is becoming longer and longer as our federation becomes more and more out of touch with the scholastic element in some kind of
mystical effort to satisfy the puritanism of FIDE. Many of us do believe that less is more, and less is better. This is simply a change
that accomplishes nothing needed or useful, so into my trash bin
it goes.
Rob Jones
There’s nothing anti-scholastic about requring that the king move first when castling. That’s how I was taught in the 5th grade many years ago, and it’s how I always taught it when I was teaching chess in elementary schools as part of their math class.
If teachers want to teach bad habits to beginning students, they’re not doing them any favors, because if they stay with chess sooner or later they’ll have to unlearn them.
Be glad the delegates at least had the good sense to put in the variation; that wasn’t in the original proposal.
But Rob, you could always just not USCF rate your scholastic events! 
More seriously, if I were a TD intending to use the variation for my scholastic events, I would at least do two things. First, I would announce the variation from the floor while simultaneously pointing out that the main rule could well be in force in other events the kids might play in so they might as well learn to castle correctly. Second (probably first sequentially) I would communicate with all the coaches in the area so they are aware of the rule urge them to teach castling properly. Do those things, and perhaps in a year you might find the variation has become unnecessary.
You have your opinions. No, this is not taught, I am sure by most.
However, the impetus for change is questionable. Change for changes
sake have little merit. That it will now have to be “untaught”, however, is nothing more than a surrender to some sort of desire
to be pure.
Rob Jones
All reasonable and good points. I must tell you that given some of
the strange rule variations kids telling me they learned at chess class
I am starting to wonder if in fact many of the teachers know the
rules themselves. I do know many of them have never set foot in
a USCF tournament.
Rob Jones
The above statement assumes something which is not true, at least in my case. There is a huge difference between permitting rook first castling and teaching it.
My preferred method as a director is to permit rook first but inform the player the king first is preferred because there is no way to interpret it as a rook move. I just see no need to punish a player by forcing the player to make a move never intended. The current rule has not been an issue and therefore I see no need to “fix” it.
From the USCF Official Rules of Chess, 6th Edition:
This rule, which was not edited in the sixth edition, relates the exact castling procedure I was taught in third grade.
Those who claim that there is no reason for the rule change continue to ignore the two live disputes I have had to handle - in this calendar year - regarding the difference between USCF Rule 10I2 and FLC 4.4.b. I’ve posted details about these in this thread, and in at least one other thread. These both involved scholastic-age players in an open event. One of these players, because he was playing in a section that offered FIDE norms, was compelled to move the rook. This player’s parents were upset because they said they had never before been told that their son’s rook-first castling was against the rules. That was one hell of a time for them to learn the difference. And, IMHO, the USCF’s vacillation on this issue did this player a tremendous disservice.
Yes, there are differences between the USCF rulebook and the FIDE rulebook, and I support USCF on some of those differences. But our own rules, as quoted above, define castling as a maneuver where the King moves first. Why not enforce it as such in our events - and do our fast-rising juniors the service of exposing them to this rule before they go off to play in open FIDE events or international youth tournaments?
The following paraphrases an argument against the rule change made at the Delegates Meeting. “It’s too much to expect kids who have been trained to castle any way they want to suddenly have to learn this one way to castle.” This argument was advanced by a Delegate who has coached numerous state and national championship scholastic teams, and who is highly respected in the scholastic community.
Unfortunately, the Delegate’s argument in this case is, IMHO, completely wrong. Proper castling is certainly no more complicated than remembering rules for proper promotion, proper en passant, proper notation, proper three-fold repetition draw claims, or proper 50-move draw claims. Scholastic players are already expected to know these, and are required to follow them. This is no different.
It was mentioned earlier in this thread that one does not have to be a rocket scientist to determine intent. This is true. However, one often is asked to be a psychic when intent-related disputes arise, especially when one does not observe the precipitating action. As a director, while I am quite capable of determining intent, I would much rather not have to do such whenever possible. I’m glad the Delegates passed the rule change. I just wish it had been proposed and passed last year - it would have greatly simplified the two 10I2 disputes I had to handle this year.
(As an aside, note that the FLC, as of July 1, 2014, must be enforced for all FIDE rated events - not just events that offer norms.)
I rather suspect that student will never again make a castling move by touching the rook first.
Chess, like life, occasionally involves some painful lessons.
Chess does offer painful lessons from time to time. We can somewhat mitigate the pain - and increase the long term benefit - by teaching those lessons as early as possible. Better to suffer those consequences in a local scholastic than a major open.
Some people teach castling by telling the student to move the rook next to the king and jump it. That is indeed teaching bad habits.
Perhaps the USCF’s certified chess coach program should include a test on the rules?
This rule change needs to be well-publicized—even more so than most. Note that the revised rule is not in the 6th Edition hard copy version.
I can see this happening: (USCF-rated but not FIDE-rated event)
Tournament early next year; nothing on castling announced or posted; Player A tries to castle by moving the Rook first; Player B objects, says “You can’t castle, now you must move the Rook,” then seeks out TD…
Player A agrees he touched the Rook first, but says he has always done it that way and understood it was allowed; Player B says “I heard the rule changed and you must touch the King first.” The TD says, “I never heard of that—but let’s check the new rulebook I just got for the holidays”…
The TD checks his print 6th Edition and cannot find anything that says the King must be touched first. He asks Player B where he heard the rule had changed; B, flustered, says, “Don’t remember. Maybe I got the rule mixed up with FIDE’s.” Shrugs and vaguely unsettling confusion all-round.
Meantime, the result of that game is different than it would have been had the rule—whatever you think of it—been enforced properly.
Yes, this can happen with any rule change, but in this case:
A. It can directly affect game results; and
B. It takes effect right after the release of a new edition of the rulebook—and it is not listed in the hard copy of that book.
Time for a mass emailing to TDs and affiliates, I think.
Next up for changes by FIDE to its rules that the USCF will have to address with amending of its rules:
- A detailed procedure for how to carry out the en passant rule
- How many fingers to use when picking up a chess piece
- The color of ink to use when writing moves. Use of pencil forbidden.
- Dress code for amateur players.
- Clock use in tournament play of only FIDE owned manufacturers.
- How many bathroom breaks a player may take during a game.
- All arbiters and assistants at any tournament required to pay annual fees to FIDE and to member federations.
- Discretion on enforcement of zero tolerance rule on players not being at the board at the beginning of the game is rescinded.
- Water, coffee, and other approved drinks are not permitted in the playing area except in FIDE approved containers.
- All prizes in tournaments will have a 10% reduction to be remitted to FIDE.
Tongue in cheek, but we have spent many pages discussing a rule that bears little meaning to a game of chess between most players. We all teach to move the king first and then the rook when castling. But what real difference does it make when a player castles? The hubbub is because FIDE decided to change its rule from a common sense usage to a more imperious one, like many of its rules. That a player might lose a right to qualify for a major tournament over this rule seems over the top but quite within the framework of FIDE. USCF TDs have been more forgiving because they are dealing with all sorts of players, not just professionals. Tying the hands of the TD and causing ill will by customers who are just getting the hang of playing chess makes no sense. It is an itty bitty rule that fits well under the purview of TD discretion. This just makes it harder for TDs as the “rules lawyers” have found a beachhead for more frivolous tinkering.
Yes, in January, there will be crying 6 year olds who just learned the moves and are unsure when they enter their first tournament. You have just told her she has to move the rook she touched when she tried to castle. The other kid, a sage and wizened rules lawyer has called it on the tyro. Go and explain the ruling to her angry parent who just paid for a USCF membership and an entry fee. Tell them that life is tough and that she has to learn a life lesson from not following a rule. See how that goes over. Will they come back? How will the other parents react to how you interpreted the rule? Good luck explaining that the rules must be congruent with FIDE’s competition rules for professionals.
Congruence with FIDE rules was barely mentioned in Orlando when we discussed this proposal.
This, in my opinion, is the most substantive argument that has been made against the approved rule change: It would obviously have been much, much better if the change had been made in time to go in the 6th edition rulebook, particularly since new editions of the rulebook have historically only come out about once per decade.
But the problem is not really the one you’ve described. In the first place, every TD should always have with them at a tournament both a rulebook and the most current set of updates to it, and we should insure that it’s impossible to become a TD without knowing this. In the second place, it wouldn’t be a disaster if a claim made on the basis of the revised castling rule were rejected by a TD because of ignorance of the rule change, since that same TD could, if he were aware of the rule change, negate it (properly) simply by announcing at the start of the tournament that he planned to allow the rook to be moved first.
The real danger is that a player who has never played in a tournament before and who has the habit of moving the rook first will (in preparation for playing in his first tournament) get a copy of the 6th edition of the rulebook (which was just published), read it, and believe on the basis of it that touching the rook first is allowed, only to be forced at his first tournament to make a move he doesn’t want to make (perhaps even losing his game because of it) simply because he purchased the current rulebook, read it, and believed what it says. While I think it’s reasonable to assume that every TD should know about and familiarize themselves with the most current file of rule revisions, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect this of new tournament players.
Because of this, I don’t believe any TD director should conduct a tournament under the new rule without announcing it at the start of the tournament, even though the wording of new rule doesn’t require such an announcement.
I don’t think the rule change, itself, is unduly burdensome. I used to castle by moving the rook first because I found it easier to remember (i.e., “move the rook next to the king and hop the king over the rook”), and continued doing so until I learned that FIDE rules did not allow it. But I didn’t find it hard to change my castling habits, and can’t imagine that anyone would have trouble modifying their habits in the next 4 1/2 months. Keep in mind that there are a number of habits players already have to develop in order to play in a tournament. I’ve found, for example, that very few players who have never played in a tournament have even heard of the touch-move rule, and it is not at all easy for them to get used to playing by it, since they have the habit of picking up a piece and starting to move it before they have positively decided to move that piece.
Well, this is where I draw the line! While I enjoy the game of chess, I absolutely refuse to wear a dress at tournaments! 
Bob
Mike, with respect, I would think based on the scenario you offered, that the problem would be more one with your intolerance. I would think, whether it is announced or not, that
for a period, we should simply issue warnings. We do, it seems,
on a fairly continual basis, have folks returning to chess after
sometimes decades of absence. Flexibility with them would not
be a bad idea.
Rob Jones
I wouldn’t bother to complain about situations like this as a player, nor would I assess any penalty as a TD (although I would warn the offender that he is required to allow the opponent to complete his move by pressing the clock).
But consider this scenario: in a sudden death time control with delay, I have an easily drawn (or even winning) position, in which I can make automatic moves, but I only have one or two seconds left on my clock. The opponent starts “blitzing” – making his moves as soon as I release my hand from the piece, and never allowing me to press my clock. Can you guess what will happen? My clock is running continuously, I never get any delay, and I will run out of time and lose. Can you honestly say there’s nothing wrong with this? This is not a hypothetical scenario – I have seen people do this, and I have had them do it to me. I don’t stand for it, as a player or as a TD.
If I caught someone doing this, I would not hesitate to award the opponent 2 minutes extra time (a standard penalty for most infractions in sudden death).
That’s the thing: As I understand it, the TD does not have discretion to issue a warning, a la the move-first, then-record scorekeeping rule. It’s all or nothing. If a player claims a touch-move violation because the opponent moved the Rook first when castling, and that claim is verified, then the TD must uphold the claim and the player who touched the Rook first must move it and cannot castle—and that could well affect the result of the game.
And it will take awhile for word on the new castling rule to filter down to TDs in the trenches, since the rule is not in the hard copy 6th Edition. That’s just how it is, even if you say that all TDs should make sure to know about all rules updates—even updates to a rulebook that were adopted days before the print copy was released.
Again, except for Blitz, the effect of USCF rules 6B and 9G is that a player may not move until the opponent presses the clock. (And before someone raises the objection, yes, as a practical matter, players do forget sometimes to press the clock, and yes, the opponent should feel free to move once it is clear the player has forgotten to press the clock. A player is under no obligation to remind the opponent to press the clock.)
Blitz rule 15 states that a legal move is completed when the hand leaves the piece. So, in Blitz, a player may in fact move before the opponent has pressed the clock. However, Blitz rule 6d states that a player must always be allowed to press the clock after making his move. That means a scenario such as this is allowed:
- White moves.
- Black immediately replies.
- White presses the clock.
- Black presses the clock.
Being allowed to press the clock is important if an increment time (such a G/3 inc/2) is in use. It is also useful if the opponent is very short of time, as it compels the opponent to at least use time to press the clock.