# Two-handled castling **URL:** \ **Category:** Running Chess Tournaments\ **Created:** [September 19, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025 "2015-09-19T19:08:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Drantos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Drantos](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Drantos)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/1 "2015-09-19T19:08:36Z")
In Baku today Nakamura ousted Nepomniatchi in the Armageddon round. But his opponent filed a protest, saying Naka illegally used two hands to castle (while four arbiters stood there and did nothing). Does anyone know if there’s a difference between the USCF and FIDE rule on using two hands to castle? ---
**Author:** ![ericmark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e68b1a/32.png) [@ericmark](https://forum.uschess.org/u/ericmark)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2015, 8:20pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/2 "2015-09-19T20:20:36Z")
Right on cue with the FIDE/USCF rules debate: [chess.com/news/world-cup-nak … worldcup15](http://www.chess.com/news/world-cup-nakamura-wins-armageddon-nepomniachtchi-appeals-4173?utm_source=sendible&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=news_worldcup15) Nepo appeals his Armageddon loss to Nakamura, since Hikaru castled with both hands. ---
**Author:** ![BrianYangUSChess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@BrianYangUSChess](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BrianYangUSChess)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2015, 8:29pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/3 "2015-09-19T20:29:49Z")
> [@FIDE Laws of Chess](#): > > Article 4: The act of moving the pieces > 4.1 Each move must be made with one hand only. > . > . > . > 4.4 If a player having the move > a. touches his king and a rook he must castle on that side if it is legal to do so, The 4 arbiters (which the Chief Arbiter was standing in front) did the proper procedure: let them play chess 😃! There was no infraction since Nakamura did exactly what the rule allowed him to do if he was castling. To Nepo - tough loss. However, both Naka and Nepo threw away several chances to advance to the next level in their rapid and blitz games. > [@USCF Official Rules of Chess - 5th edition](#): > > 10I1. King touched first, or king and rook simultaneously. If a player intending to castle touches the king first, or king and rook at the same time, and then realizes that castling is illegal, the player may choose either to move the king or to castle on the other side if legal. If the king has no legal move, the player is free to choose any move. As for USCF Rules, there is nothing against using two hands to castle. tldr; no differences between FIDE and USCF rules - using two hands to castle is allowed. Best, ~Acerook P.S. Motion to move this topic from “USCF Issues” to “Running Chess Tournaments” Edit: corrected typo “Let the play chess!” to “Let them play chess!” ---
**Author:** ![Mulfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Mulfish](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Mulfish)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/4 "2015-09-19T21:12:27Z")
I don’t understand, Brian. Doesn’t 4.1 say that he must make the move using only one hand? Now the penalty is unspecified, and a warning is the most likely penalty, at which point 4.4 applies. It does not sound like his opponent is arguing Rf8 should have been required, only that the arbiter should have acted. But in a way he can only blame himself. He said Naka did it before. If he had complained then, Naka would have been warned. Moreover, Naka might have complied and slowed himself down, or the arbiters might have been more alert and more likely to intervene (or penalize him if Nepo complained). Either way, he would have benefited by complaining earlier. Not having done sok it’s rather late to say Naka was breaking the rule all day. Irrelevant! ---
**Author:** ![BrianYangUSChess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@BrianYangUSChess](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BrianYangUSChess)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/5 "2015-09-19T21:34:26Z")
While 4.1 does say to move with one hand, 4.4 makes an exemption with regards to castling - at least this is my interpretation as FIDE NA. Furthermore, “4.8 A player forfeits his right to a claim against his opponent’s violation of Articles 4.1 – 4.7 once the player touches a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it.” Since Nepo touched a piece & moved after Naka’s castling move, by rule 4.8, Nepo forfeits the right to claim any violations of 4.1. Therefore, the appeal is then moot by 4.4 & 4.8. Personally, I would have kept the $500 appeal fee :mrgreen: Best, Acerook P.S. I’m open to being corrected by fellow NAs/FAs/IAs as I’m relatively new to FIDE Law of Chess interpretations and applications. ---
**Author:** ![davidacole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9a140/32.png) [@davidacole](https://forum.uschess.org/u/davidacole)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2015, 9:56pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/6 "2015-09-19T21:56:02Z")
Well, if the player were to touch the rook first with one hand and then the other hand touches the king to do the two handed castling, perhaps Nepo’s complaint was that Naka touched the rook first and then used his other hand to touch the king. I maybe drawing incorrect conclusions, but in my mind this is the most likely scenario. I know it is splitting hairs, but that is what we all do. Respectfully Submitted, David A. Cole, USCF Life Member, Franklin, NJ ---
**Author:** ![Drantos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Drantos](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Drantos)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/7 "2015-09-19T22:36:21Z")
The appeals committee ruled against Nepo on technical grounds – that he should have stopped the clocks and appealed immediately after the infraction. It said he lost his right to appeal as soon as he made a move on the board. As to the actual rule violation: The committee added that Nakamura should be warned that he was breaking FIDE rules by using two hands. You have to use one hand to castle and you have to touch the king first. ---
**Author:** ![eastside](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/eastside/32/3726_2.png) [@eastside](https://forum.uschess.org/u/eastside)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2015, 11:09pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/8 "2015-09-19T23:09:04Z")
Mr. Soltis’s recounting of the ruling is correct, from what I heard. As for the appeal’s merits, I think Nepomniachtchi had a case, if he had appealed immediately. However, since (I believe) the penalty would have been a time adjustment of one minute, rather than loss of game, I think waiting until after the game is concluded is too late. (Posting from my phone, in 3G-Land; too slow to check the Laws.) ---
**Author:** ![tzs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@tzs](https://forum.uschess.org/u/tzs)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2015, 12:42pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/9 "2015-09-20T12:42:21Z")
> [@AsianAcerook](#): > > While 4.1 does say to move with one hand, 4.4 makes an exemption with regards to castling - at least this is my interpretation as FIDE NA. I see nothing in 4.4 that makes an exception to 4.1 for castling. If you touch a king and rook, 4.4 says that you must castle, but says nothing about how you must execute that move, so the mechanics of actually making the move should still be governed by 4.1. ---
**Author:** ![Sevan\_Muradian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Sevan\_Muradian](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Sevan_Muradian)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2015, 1:23pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/10 "2015-09-20T13:23:58Z")
Perhaps we should also be referencing the regulations in force during the event (while not differing much from the LoC, there are still some notable differences): [bakuworldcup2015.com/content/20](http://www.bakuworldcup2015.com/content/20) > [@World Cup 2015 Regulations](#): > > 1. 8 Tie-breaks > > 2. > 1. > 1. a. If the scores are level after the regular games, after a new drawing of colors, two (2) tie-break games shall be played. The games shall be played using the electronic clock starting with 25 minutes for each player with an addition of 10 seconds after each move. > > 3. 8. 1. b. All tie-break games shall be played according to the Annex 2 of the World Championship Technical Regulations. > > 1. > 1. > 1. a. If the scores are level after the games in paragraph 3.8.1a, then, after a new drawing of colors, a match of 2 games shall be played to determine the winner with a time control of 10 minutes plus 10 seconds increment after each move. In case of a level score, another match of 2 games shall be played with a time control of 5 minutes plus 3 seconds increment after each move. If still there is no winner, one sudden-death game will be played as described below in 3.8.3a. > > 2. > 1. > 1. b. The games shall be played according to the Rules mentioned in 3.8.1.b. > > 3. > 1. > 1. a. If the score is still level after the matches as described in 3.8.2a, the players shall play a single decisive sudden death game. The player who wins the drawing of lots may choose the color. The player with the white pieces shall receive 5 minutes, the opponent with the black pieces shall receive 4 minutes whereupon, after the 60th move, both players shall receive an increment of 3 seconds for each move from move 61. In case of a draw the player with the black pieces is declared the winner. > > 4. > 1. > 1. b. The games shall be played according to the Rules mentioned in 3.8.1.b. > > 5. > 1. > 1. Between the tie-break games as well as before the start of the sudden death game there shall be a pause of at least 10 minutes, unless the Chief Arbiter decides otherwise. These are the regulations - [fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regul … h\_2016.pdf](http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regulations_match_2016.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Micah\_Smith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@Micah\_Smith](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Micah_Smith)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2015, 7:06pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/11 "2015-09-20T19:06:59Z")
> [@AsianAcerook](#): > > As for USCF Rules, there is nothing against using two hands to castle. There is in Blitz: [uschess.org/docs/gov/reports … hanges.pdf](http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/BlitzRuleChanges.pdf) "4.) Each player must press the clock with the same hand that moves the pieces, using one hand to both move the pieces and to press the clock. TD TIP: This rule, the use of one hand in all blitz moves, also applies to castling and capture." ---
**Author:** ![Mulfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Mulfish](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Mulfish)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2015, 12:54am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/12 "2015-09-21T00:54:00Z")
True, albeit irrelevant to the discussion at hand. ---
**Author:** ![brennanprice](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/brennanprice/32/723_2.png) [@brennanprice](https://forum.uschess.org/u/brennanprice)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2015, 2:22am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/13 "2015-09-21T02:22:00Z")
From the regulations Sevan referenced: > [@](#): > > 4.7 A player forfeits his right to a claim against his opponent’s violation of Article 4 once he deliberately touches a piece. In other words, if the arbiters fail to speak up, the player must speak up himself. Under Rule 4.1 and in any serious chess play, two handed castling is dirty pool. Naka got away with one here thanks to Nepo touching a piece. Why didn’t the arbiters speak up? Dunno. Would I have spoken up? I would like to think I would, without reservation or cheerful acceptance of criticism. Move. With. One. Hand. All. The. Time. Period. ---
**Author:** ![mlanger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b782af/32.png) [@mlanger](https://forum.uschess.org/u/mlanger)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2015, 10:37pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/14 "2015-09-21T22:37:58Z")
> [@Mulfish](#): > > True, albeit irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Pointing out the fact that that it’s illegal to castle according to USCF Blitz rules is more relevant to the discussion at hand than some of the other posts in this thread. It didn’t deserve to be singled out for your comment. ---
**Author:** ![ericmark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e68b1a/32.png) [@ericmark](https://forum.uschess.org/u/ericmark)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 1:04am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/15 "2015-09-23T01:04:37Z")
Naka speaks: [youtube.com/watch?v=ge9zoxL … gn=youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge9zoxLoGE4&utm_source=sendible&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=youtube) ---
**Author:** ![tmagchesspgh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@tmagchesspgh](https://forum.uschess.org/u/tmagchesspgh)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 5:52pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/16 "2015-09-23T17:52:10Z")
Did anyone notice in the youtube video that Nakamura’s opponent was following a sharp practice that is also against the rules? Before Nakamura was even finished castling and pressed the clock, Nepo had already made his move. While this happens all of the time, it is still against the rules to be moving and not allowing your opponent to hit the clock. Frankly, he got what he deserved by moving so fast and negating his opportunity to protest. Another irony is that I usually see eastern European players and Russians castle with two hands quite frequently in large tournaments. Nobody bothers to correct them or make a big fuss about it when they do that. ---
**Author:** ![brennanprice](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/brennanprice/32/723_2.png) [@brennanprice](https://forum.uschess.org/u/brennanprice)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 6:06pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/17 "2015-09-23T18:06:55Z")
> [@tmagchesspgh](#): > > Did anyone notice in the youtube video that Nakamura’s opponent was following a sharp practice that is also against the rules? Before Nakamura was even finished castling and pressed the clock, Nepo had already made his move. Cite the rule reference for this. I hope you’ll forgive me for not holding my breath while you fail to do so. ---
**Author:** ![wilecoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/2bfe46/32.png) [@wilecoyote](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wilecoyote)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 6:12pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/18 "2015-09-23T18:12:34Z")
> [@tmagchesspgh](#): > > Did anyone notice in the youtube video that Nakamura’s opponent was following a sharp practice that is also against the rules? Before Nakamura was even finished castling and pressed the clock, Nepo had already made his move. While this happens all of the time, it is still against the rules to be moving and not allowing your opponent to hit the clock. Frankly, he got what he deserved by moving so fast and negating his opportunity to protest. > > Another irony is that I usually see eastern European players and Russians castle with two hands quite frequently in large tournaments. Nobody bothers to correct them or make a big fuss about it when they do that. This analysis is incorrect. Under the FIDE Laws of Chess, there is nothing preventing an opponent from moving as soon as the player has “made” a move (“determined” a move in US Chess rules parlance). It is absolutely true that a player must always be allowed to press the clock. However, the following sequence is allowed under the Laws of Chess: 1. The player (say, White) moves a piece. 2. As soon as White has released the piece, Black makes his move. 3. White presses the clock. 4. Black presses the clock. Note that this sequence is not allowed according to US Chess rules (except in blitz). Under US Chess rules, the player’s move is determined when the player releases the piece (ignoring pawn promotion) and completed when the player presses the clock. During the interval between determination and completion of the move, the player is still on the move, and the opponent is therefore not on the move. The FIDE Laws of Chess do not make the distinction between determination and completion of the move, referring only to “made” a move. (Actually, to be precise, Article 6.2.a does refer to “completion” of the move, in quotation marks. > [@Article 6.2.a](#): > > During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if: > > ``` > the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c, 9.6a, 9.6b and 9.7), or > the player has made his next move, in case his previous move was not completed. > > ``` > > A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move. The time between making the move on the chessboard and pressing the clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player. During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if: > > 1. the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c, 9.6a, 9.6b and 9.7), or > 2. the player has made his next move, in case his previous move was not completed. > > A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move. The time between making the move on the chessboard and pressing the clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player. (emphasis mine) ---
**Author:** ![brennanprice](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/brennanprice/32/723_2.png) [@brennanprice](https://forum.uschess.org/u/brennanprice)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 6:17pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/19 "2015-09-23T18:17:53Z")
What Ken said. ---
**Author:** ![tmagchesspgh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@tmagchesspgh](https://forum.uschess.org/u/tmagchesspgh)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 7:15pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025/20 "2015-09-23T19:15:42Z")
What this seems to mean is that under FIDE rules, if I make a move and keep my hand on the piece and my opponent makes a move and has his hand waiting to press the clock, I can put my piece back and claim an illegal move by my opponent has been made. He has made two moves in a row before I have completed a move. Under FIDE blitz rules, he should then forfeit the game. Under USCF rules, my opponent moving swiftly before I have a chance to complete my move and press the clock can hover over pressing the clock, which is a violation of USCF Blitz rule 6.e. As I said, this is a sharp practice that happens all of the time and has led to more than a few disputes and the occasional postgame punching match. What you see in the video is Nepo moving and releasing his piece before Nakamura has finished castling. [Next page](https://forum.uschess.org/t/two-handled-castling/21025.md?page=2)