Talk:Castling

message: I've reverted the latest edits about castling, which seemed to suggest that the rule (see #3.8) about not being able to castle out of check is only an "opinion". If it's in FIDE rules, then that's that - any other rules that people may play should be noted as exceptions, not equally valid alternatives. — sjorford++ 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed this: Castling out of check is chess move where the King castles to escape an attack by his opponent.  According to most opinions, this move is not allowed, though the reason is not given.  Most chess players don't know about this restriction, and many think it should be allowed., whuch was merged from its own article.  The rules of standard chess do not allow you to castle if you are in check.  This is a rule, not an "opinion".  Bubba73 (talk), 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castling 

message: I added a line about the king not being able to castle if the king would have to pass through squares that are under attack by enemy pieces James Strong 01:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about squares under attack between castling pieces 

message: For many years I was under the impression that one of the requirements for castling was that whether kingside or queenside when you castle; the last three pawns in either the A,B, and C files or F, G, and H depending which way you castle your king, must not have been moved past the 2nd or 7th rank respectively. However I a have discovered that the many sources I have checked from books to various websites does not state the pawn positions as a requiremnt. However I am occasionally introduced to carious diagrams that show those pawns in positions acting as barriers to the castles king. Is that just a coincidence or is that barrier of pawns actually a requirement? I hope someone has the answer to my question. Thank you in advance.
: The barrier of pawns in not a requirement.  However, you generally want those three pawns to be in their original position when you castle as the pawns give great protection to the king.  It is often seen as a weakness to have any of the three pawns in front of your castled king to be moved from their original position as the hole(s) created by the moved pawn(s) allow the enemy to enter your castled position. James Strong 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, beware the back rank mate... Delirious prince 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See "Luft" [] with regard to preventing the back rank mate.WHPratt (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone answer my question please? 

message: Is it true that the rook cannot be under attack after castling in order for castling to work? -- Jordan 21:29, 7 August 2006
:If the rook is under attack after castling, then the square it is on is a square the king moved over. Since the king is not allowed to pass through check, then castling would be prohibited in that situation.--Lkjhgfdsa 20:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Lkjhgfdsa is indeed the official rule; however, players or local communities often use other conventions; e.g. allowing a king to castle even when passing through check, if 1) it is not moving out of check, 2) it is not moving into check, 3) the rook is not under attack before castling, 4) the rook is not under attack after castling. This would allow a Q-side castling even when the Q-Bishop square is under attack. I can attest that this was the norm where I come from, and I assumed this was standard until I grew up and learned otherwise. Of course, such "rules" vary from locality to locality and I merely added this as of anecdotal value. -- Nahum (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the queen bishop square is under attack, queenside castling would put the king in check.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Proviso (4) above is exactly the rule that says you can't castle through check, though. The square the rook ends up on is exactly the same as the square the king passes through. It is actually (3) that is against the standard rules: you can castle if your rook is attacked. Double sharp (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Perhaps User:Nahum believed that castling queenside consists of moving the king three squares instead of two. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rook after castling 

message: Rule #5 in the Requirements links to a footnote that already contradicts Rule #2. Any comments?? Georgia guy 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand the footnote it basically says that a pawn can be promoted to a rook once he has reached the other side.  If he's in front of the King when he does this, the resulting Rook will not have moved, and thus technically Rule 2 would not forbid a vertical castle, across the board, to occur.  Eboli 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix please 

message: I've just discovered an external link to a site on the German Wikipedia that has no equivalent in the English Wikipedia. Can anyone please create the English equivalent?? Georgia guy 00:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What equivalent?... WinterSpw 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guess what?? 

message: I am deleting what was labeled requirement #7:
The king and the rook must be on the same rank.
Of course the king and rook are on the same rank if neither has been yet moved, which is rule #1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.169.218.182 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article explains, the problem is when you promote a pawn to a rook. That (new) rook has not yet moved. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  -- nevermind, I just read the reference in the notes. That seems ridiculous though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.169.218.182 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a little ridiculous, and confusing. We're just supposed to report what reliable sources say about the matter, though, and the FIDE rules, and the way they handle the issue, are the important source there. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's quite sad though. I mean, if you can actually make productive use of such an outrageous move, more power to you! 24.110.145.57 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't happy or sad - it is a rule.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect/duplicate requiremnt 

message: The article could use a section on the history of the castling rule.  The Oxford Companion to Chess has some useful material, and I think A History of Chess has even more detail.  Italian free castling should be described, and then the mention of free castling in Serafino Dubois could be made into a link.  Quale 09:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a section based on Sunnucks' Encyclopedia.  OTher sources may have more info that can be added.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of castling 

message: Say that there is an enemy knight next to the rook on the kingside. neither king nor rook have moved. Can the king castle, and take the piece? BillMasen 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find information in the article that will answer this question.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Summarily, no you can't. WinterSpw 23:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under "Requirements": 3. There must be no pieces between the king and the chosen rook. -- Jao 09:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  taking and castling at the same time? 

message: Rule 7 for castling states "The king and the chosen rook must be on the same rank." If neither the rook nor the king have moved, then they are certainly on the same rank. Why does this need to be stated, then? hgilbert (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one of the rules.  Read the footnote attached to it for the reason.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the point is moot, since FIDE added the extra rule, I agree with hgilbert about the superfluity. The case that Krabbe points out (vertical castling) is surely covered by a reasonable reading of rule 2: the new-formed rook has moved during the game, albeit in the form of a pawn. If they wished to eliminate all possible ambiguity, they could have simply rephrased rule 2 to say that both the rook and King must have occupied their current locations since the beginning of the game.JudahH (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it was a different piece when it was a pawn.  And obviously the FIDE rules committee did not think so either. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous rule 

message: The article explains where and when does Castling come from but nowhere can I find why chess players of 500 years ago found out the need for such a rule. Does anybody know? Not only when it was invented, but also why.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.92.211.187 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: .  Bubba73 (talk), 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was Castling implemented in the first place? 

message: Is this seriously necessary?
"0-0" redirects here. For the reference to someone who wears glasses (0-0), see emoticon.
Do you think a lot of people search for "0-0" expecting to find glasses?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.182.172.229 (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 0-0 is accessed a few times per day, on average.  Some of them are probably looking for the emoticon, so I think it should either be here or 0-0 should be a disambig page.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, i made it a disambig page, like 0-0-0.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Following simple analytical logic, Tim Krabbe used "O-O-O-O-O-O" to denote the "vertical castling" in his infamous problem.  He had the king move the usual two squares towards the promoted rook, and this rook had to traverse six squares to jump the king and deliver a checkmate from the e2 square.WHPratt (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Added: I remember seeing Krabbe's outrageous "problem" in Chess Review back in the early 1970s, and he seemed to think that it would have been legal.  I wonder if the "same rank" codicil was "always" there, or whether it may have been added in response to someone concocting this scenario. Some research would be appropriate. WHPratt (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was legal at the time, according to a strict application of the rules.  In fact, FIDE changed the rules as a result!  See footnote #2 in the article.Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Debatable: arguably, a Rook that began life as a pawn has "previously moved". Still, it made sense to revise the rules to remove all ambiguity. JudahH (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but the rook has not moved.  FIDE realized that there was a loophole in the rules so they changed it.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that's why I said debatable: the debate would revolve around whether moves made in a previous life are attributable to the pawn-cum-Rook. I have little doubt that had a move like Krabbe's been attempted in an actual tournament game, said debate would have ensued. No argument that FIDE revised the rules to eliminate this as a possible loophole. JudahH (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't think so.  The rule has been that the king rook cannot have moved.  If either was on any square e2 to e7, it would have moved.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean Krabbé's vertical castling with an e8-rook. He has the king end up on e3 and the promoted rook end up on e2; I think it would also make sense for the king to end up on e5 and the promoted rook on e4. Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The rule says to move the king two squares and the rook goes on the other side.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glasses 

message: Quote: " ... it moves the king into a safer position away from the center of the board, and it moves the rook to a more active position in the center of the board (it is possible even to checkmate with castling."
I don't recall any top-level game in which castling delivered checkmate, but the article could reference the article on Edward Lasker [], section "Notable games."  In his famous game against Sir George Thomas, Edward Lasker sacrifices his queen, then drives Thomas' king to the opposite side of the board.  He delivers a checkmate by shifting his own king to the second rank, discovering check from a rook.  But he could have just as easily castled to end the game. WHPratt (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Lawrence Day for a link to just such a finish. Captain Pedant (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that, I've added it to the article.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

text: .  I wish he had castled!!!  Bubba73 (talk), 17:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Strategy 

message: Redircted Castling on opposite sides here. Section to be created. SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castling on opposite sides  

message: I've read this article, and I can't seem to find (other than in the history) what the king can now do. I remember playing it that the king can move 2 squares once. In the history of castling section, it says "the king can now move two squares or a knights move" but does that still apply, and for how many moves can the king do this? androo123  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.182.78 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand the question. These special moves were precursors of castling; the current castling move superseded them so they are no longer legal. As for what happens after castling, there are no special provisions. The king moves after castling in exactly the same way it did before castling (except that, for obvious reasons, it cannot castle again). —JAO • T • C 18:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  After castling the king can make any legal move.  Castling again is not a legal move.  The other thing in "history" don't apply now. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What can the king do after castling?? 

message: Castling is in most non-English speaking nations known as 'Rochieren/Rochada/Roque'. That seems to be German, Spanish (?) and French -- just three languages, hardly "most". Unless the intent was to say that most languages use a similar word. Even if so, I somewhat doubt it. 91.105.48.135 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I fixed this. But it is a fact that quite a few languages use a similar word, just check the interwiki links. -- 217.190.221.241 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other languages 

message: The diagrams seem to be messed up.  In the first two, the white pieces are shifted one file to the right.WHPratt (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Something is wrong - when I edit them, they look OK but the first rank is shifted one square, as you say.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams in Error 

message: From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
Castling  (2nd definition)
(n.) 
That which is cast or brought forth prematurely; an abortion.
   
Just in case someone looks (like I did) for this meaning rather than the Chess one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahum (talk • contribs) 10:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig 

message: Is there any reason for the 0-0 notation other than "have to call it something"? -- 217.190.221.241 (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any reason.  In old literature it was written as "castles" or "castles queenside".  0-0 is short and not likely to be confused with anything else.  I think initially that 0-0 was used for both sides.  Perhaps O-O symbolizes exchanging the two pieces, but I am just speculating.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've wondered the history of this notation myself.  To help my students remember the difference, I tell them that the number of 0's (or O's) is same as the number of squares between the King and Rook.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.60 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is also the number of squares that the rook moves.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 0-0 and 0-0-0? 

message: Article: "It is a common mistake to think that the requirements for castling are even more stringent than the above. To clarify:
1. The king may have been in check previously, as long as it is not in check at the time of castling. "
...
In keeping with a policy of overkill (which makes sense in an encyclopedia), I'd suggest adding . . .
"1. The king may have been in check previously, as long as it is not in check at the time of castling. (Obviously, this check must have been resolved by means other than moving the king.)"
Just to clarify that an early check doesn't rule out castling unless the king is moved in response. WHPratt (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is too much because it is stated earlier that the king cannot have moved previously.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did admit that it was overkill to the second or third degree, but there's a lot of that here. ;) WHPratt (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  At one time someone (at the chess article I think, or the chess project talk page) objected to the whole "It is a common mistake to think that the requirements for castling are even more stringent..." part, but the "notable castelings" shows some examples where world-class players had such misconceptions. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: is queenside castling possible  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.49.21 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, I wonder! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it means castling with the queen?  If that's what you mean, then no.    –BuickCenturyDriver 11:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means castling with the a-file rook instead of the h-file rook. That is possible. Double sharp (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  chess castling 

message: Added a reference for the 'common mistake' line in the Requirements section.  In general, is a single example enough?  I think, from my own experience, that being unsure about whether you can castle when the rook is threatened is fairly common, but I realise that's not exactly referable... NJHartley (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Yuri Averbakh failed to know that once (in the article).  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for 'common mistake' 

message: So you cannot castle if your king or rook has been moved. What if your rook was captured? Do you also lose your ability to castle in that case? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Castling moves the king two spaces and the rook to the other side.  You can't do it if you don't have that rook.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the rules do state that a player who begins an "odds" game without a rook (as a means of conceding a handicap to the opponent) may still castle as if the rook were there, provided the other requirements are still met (with an added stipulation that no other man can have occupied the missing rook's square at any time.) All this means is that you may be able to move your king two squares towards the edge under these circumstances. WHPratt (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I think the special provision for rook odds is of sufficient interest to deserve a mention in the article, if we can find a source. Quale (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there an official source for this rule (i.e. castling with rook odds)?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure that I read it somewhere, as it never would have occurred to me to make it up. However, I couldn't find it in my copies of the USCF/FIDE rules. I wouldn't be surprised if the topic of "odds games" is absent from most codes, as the whole idea is pretty much extra-legal. I'm really not sure that it's worth mentioning in the article.  I am sure that someone can find it if it exists. WHPratt (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be in the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That book doesn't say.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @WHPRatt, I know you didn't and wouldn't make it up.  I'm vaguely familiar with the rule as well.  But Krakatoa certainly has a source, and in fact he wrote an entire article about chess handicaps.  You can find a reference for the castling rule with rook odds in an article he wrote, Chess handicap#Main.  Quale (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. In reading through that article, it becomes evident that in giving handicaps, the opponents pretty much make up the rules for the occasion; there are just some general conventions (e.g., if you offer to spot someone a knight, it's the queen's knight unless explicitly specified.) If you Google "Phantom" "and "Rook" together, you'll find varying historical opinions on the castling eligibility of such. It's more evidence that this has no place in the mainstream article on castling, but should be noted somewhere. I only brought it up here in the interest of completeness. WHPratt (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captured rook 

message: From book: Startling Castling! by Robert Timmer
Under the strict touch-move rules enforced in most tournaments, castling is considered a king move. A player who intends to castle but touches the rook first would be committed to make a rook move, and thus will not be permitted to castle.
White changes his mind as he noticed mate in 1, so he use trick as shown in the picture file. 
https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/JjXCxHW8a.png
https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/H8wOCNS.png  
Sunny3113 (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandatory move with the rook? 

message: Why 0-0 and 0-0-0 were chosen as the notation for castling is an interesting question, but I am not sure the answer is known. I removed the recently added claim "This notation derives from the number of empty squares required to enable the move."  This claims sounds plausible on its face, but I think is actually implausible.  Or maybe it's true but it's implausible to think that we can support it with a WP:RS reliable source.  I've never seen any reference that supports this claim.
Online forums are not WP:RS reliable sources, but this might be of interest: chess.stackexchange.com: why-are-o-o-and-o-o-o-symbols-used-for-castling-in-algebraic-notation – "The castling notation was invented by Johann Allgaier and used for the first time in his 1811 2nd edition of his Neue theoretisch-praktische Anweisung zum Schachspiel. He didn't explain why he came up with it." Quale (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you (which is why I added the Citation Needed).  That could be the reason, but I don't think I've ever heard that from a reliable source.  If it were because of the number of empty squares, then why not 00 instead of 0-0?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I support what you did. I think  tags are good and I don't like to completely remove good-faith contributions, but I am wary about how dubious uncited claims in Wikipedia end up copied from Wikipedia on other websites which are then cited here to support the false claims in Wikipedia.  Better to not give those weeds a chance to take root elsewhere, I think.  Quale (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation for castling 

message: I propose to merge Artificial castling into Castling. Artificial castling isn't really a concept independent of castling, resulting in significant WP:OVERLAP between the two articles. The artificial castling article short enough to easily fit as a section within Castling. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Bruce leverett (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

text: I would support this, I don't see the concept of "castling by hand" to be notable enough for a separate article and I highly doubt that there are enough sources discussing it in depth to justify one. If we weren't already here I would AfD it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Makes sense, no objection here. — Bilorv (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: This was removed: "Tim Krabbé composed a joke chess problem containing vertical castling involving a king on e1 and a promoted rook on e8. The loophole in the definition of castling upon which this problem was based was removed by FIDE in June 1974 by the new requirement that the rook used to castle must occupy the same rank as the king."
FIDE did change the rule in 1974.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1974 FIDE Interpretation Article 6.1 was merely explanatory and didn't address vertical castling. See https://www.janko.at/Retros/Glossary/FideLaws1977.htm. Other stuff regarding Pam-Krabbé castling is covered in the history section. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I just looked it up. It was changed in 1974, but it just clarifies it:
* old: ... the king is transferred from its original square to either of the nearest squares of the same color in the same rank ... 
* 1974: ... the king is transferred, from its original square, two squares towards either rook on the same rank ...  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1974 rule change 

message: All that needs to be said here is that some variants based on Western chess allow castling, sometimes in modified form, and some don't. It certainly doesn't need huge diagrams. The current level of detail is WP:UNDUE in my opinion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is necessary to mention Capablanca chess, there should be a link to that variant's article.  But I suggest that if we need a description of castling in that variant, it should be in that variant's article.  Bruce leverett (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  castling in chess variants 

message: Of the list of conditions under which castling is allowed, number 1 is not a condition.  It is part of the definition of castling.  I propose that it be removed from the list, and the conditions be renumbered.  Bruce leverett (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, plus a minor modification on "description". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conditions 

message: There is no hope of digging up the old reference (Strunk and White) from which I learned things like colon versus semicolon, so I googled it and found this:  http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/colons-vs-semicolons
The sentence in question consists of three parts:
*Castling is generally an important goal in the opening
*it moves the king to safety away from the center of the board
*and it moves the rook to a more active position in the center of the board
The second and third parts are elaborations on the first part.  We are giving a list (of length 2) of reasons why castling is an important goal
This is a classic example of a situation where a colon is used to set off a list, and semicolons are used to terminate each entry of the list (except the last), as described in the article linked above.  Bruce leverett (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a copy of Strunk and White right behind me, if you need it. But I agree with your change. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've changed my mind on the matter. The usage of the semicolon doesn't seem to be corroborated by your source, and at that rate, you might've misremembered what Strunk and White said, which we have no way of knowing because, according to you, the reference is gone.
My decision will be based on the Wikipedia Manual of Style, according to which semicolons are to be used in lists only where commas would be confusing, which is not the case here. I am reverting the change. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

text: You are right, my source supports using a colon instead of a semi-colon to set off a list, but it doesn't say what to use to separate list items.  And MOS:COLON suggests using commas, except where the list items get out of hand.  Bruce leverett (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colon versus semicolon 

message: I prefer to avoid this word in chess articles. Chess is just a game and enemy is a strong word. "Opponent's piece" is ok, but more often than not it is clear from context whose pieces you are referring to and it is not necessary to state it explicitly. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am surprised at this, I would not have raised an eyebrow at the use of "enemy piece".  Google shows it in various places, including other Wikipedia articles.  I agree that context is sometimes sufficient, but when it isn't, "enemy piece" is less stilted than "opponent's piece".  Bruce leverett (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The word opposing is fine, I guess. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't make it about me in your edit summaries. The focus is on improving the encyclopedia, not satisfying individual editors. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Help, help, I'm being microagressed! MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find "enemy" especially controversial. Everyone knows that this is a game, and, please note: a competition! WHPratt (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "enemy" 

message: Why does the "Rules" section have so much information that has nothing to do with the rules? Calling User:Bruce leverett. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I wanted to bring Fischer-Najdorf and Karpov-Miles together, and I chose to move the latter up close to the former.  If you want to reorganize, have at it, if I don't like it, we can iterate until we find something we both like.  Feel free to rename sections, create new sections, combine sections, whatever.  Bruce leverett (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rules" section 

message: The primary source for this, Purdy's Chess World magazine, is reproduced here by Winter. Every other source is a hand me down, possibly with embellishments. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Averbakh-Purdy incident 

message: The article states that Castling was described in the Göttingen Manuscript, but does not directly reference it, neither does the article on the manuscript itself. I will go down to the University to check and add a reference to the manuscript if possible, but I cannot find any information on it in German. Catgirl-su (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Murray (there is a link in the bibliography of Chess that can be used for this), he notes (pp. 783-784) that the Göttingen Manuscript describes the "King's leap", which is not castling, but is an alternate version of it, whereby the rook moves to f1, and on the next move, the king leaps over it to g1. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Göttingen Manuscript 

message: User HolyT, who recently updated Chess strategy, appears very knowledgeable re grammar, especially sing. vs. pl. (see his Talk), so will ask here if he will weigh in on the verb issue above. (If so , thank you!) --IHTS (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you for asking and pinging me! I am a technical writer and lifetime student of language and grammar (but an engineer and pilot by education and training). I didn't realize that there was an existing issue about this. If you're referring to the "if neither the king nor the rook has/have moved" question: Has is definitely correct in that sentence. The rule, historically, has been that the nearer subject must match the verb (when subjects are connected by or or nor): Does James or the twins want to watch the movie? Do we or Thomas like Thai food? Either you or he is required. Either he or you are required. Etc. I think that everyone has already sorted this out, but I'll also say that that sentence accurately explains the rule—the king and the rook BOTH must NOT have moved, which is communicated by "neither the king nor the rook has moved." If either the king has moved OR the rook has moved, then that condition is false, and castling is not permitted. Does that answer the questions at hand? Are you looking for a grammar reference? Cheers! Holy (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx so much for that. I believe that's plenty sufficient for the purpose here. Again, thanks so much! --IHTS (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Break

message: This article references the 5th edition of the USCF rule book, this is out dated, as rule 10I2 was added in the 7th edition.
10I2. Rook touched first. If a player intending to castle touches the rook first, castling is not allowed and the player must move the rook as required by rule 10B.
Though it also allows for a TD to implement a variation where the rook can be touched first.
https://new.uschess.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/us-chess-rule-book-online-only-edition-chapters-1-2-9-10-11-2024.pdf ExpletiveDeleted617 (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Chess Rules on Castling, 7th Edition