Castling Variation - Touch Rook First

I don't agree at all, urk. I fully believe that this rule is straightforward. I don't really know why you've assumed what you have about what you believe it's supposed to mean.

You're throwing a lot of insults now. I can't be bothered with you anymore. You're trying to argue that 2+2=3 and then complaining that the person arguing the answer is 4 is sticking to their facts.

I'm untracking again.

I know nothing about the USCF but certainly the way I read the rule is that it was talking about castling rook-first.

Interesting discussion. I don't know the USCF rules, but I think it is clear by now from this discussion that both the USCF and the FIDE rules states that the king must be moved first.

There is just this odd little thing with the USCF rules that if the player touches the rook first, but NOT moving it, he is still alowed to castle by actually moving the king first.

It would certainly be a lot simpler if the USCF rules just followed the FIDE rules on this matter.

Logically, the King must be moved first. Castling is a KING move, not a ROOK move. If the Rook was allowed to move first, then one could argue that the player changed his mind regarding the move AFTER releasing the Rook, thus completing the move. I believe that according to the rules, a move is completed when the piece is released. The players turn is over when the clock is pressed. If by pressing the clock meant the MOVE is completed, then any player could take back moves after releasing the piece and make new ones before pressing the clock.

I believe the intent of the USCF rule is to allow the touching of the Rook prior to moving the King to castle. It's like the rule that states if an opponent's piece is touched, it must be captured. And by touching/lifting the captured piece off the board, it is replaced by the capturing piece (which could be more than one possible choice). However, in the case of the castling Rook, the Rook may be touch, but the King must move first and the Rook completes the move.

If I am mistaken about this, it will take a USCF official to convince me otherwise. But I believe my logic regarding this rule is sound.

Obviously, two interpretations of this rule have surfaced, and each group is convinced it's right. That's a clear sign that the rule is not clear. (pun intended)

The USCF Rules Committee needs to either clarify this rule or change it to be the same as the FIDE rule. Sometimes I think they make these confusing rules on purpose. (Sort of like the way Microsoft can't seem to clearly convey information to its users.)

I guess the intention of the rule is that if a player plays Rf1 or Rd1, it lets the player convert that into O-O or O-O-O if legal.

But can everyone please just move the king first? This doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on. it's so elegant to move the king first because it's obvious that your intention is to castle and there are no touch-move ambiguities. I don't know why USCF added this exception.

Its pretty clear to me that rule 10/2 is to be followed in uscf tournies if there is no announcement made that rule 10/2  ( variation 1 ) will be in use instead .   Its not confusing to me . 

I don't believe there's any confusion about when Rule 10I2 Variation I is invoked. The confusion is over the interpretation of the actual rule, once Variation I is in effect.

Myself, I always castle by touching the king first, per FIDE rules. It the right way to do it, and it's unambiguous.

I think if my opponent ever touches his rook first in a castling situation, I won't care what he does (as long as the move is legal) until he hits his clock.

As a former uscf TD I would interpret Variation 1 to mean that you can castle ( if legal ) even when you touch the rook first , under 10/2 (default ) you clearly cannot . 

Right. That's exactly how I read it also.

The interpretation debate seems to be whether Variation 1 would allow a player to not only touch the rook first, but to also move the rook first, then release the rook, then move the king. Do you think the Variation 1 rule allows this, or not?

Just for the record, I have seen Hikaru Nakamura grab both King and Rook using both hands, and move them both simultaneously to castle and then smack his clock. This was a game against Danny Rensch. The game was for fun, but he still did it.

If you're supposed to hit the clock with the hand you moved the piece with, did he use both hands?

Naka had the Rook with one hand and King in the other. He then hit the clock with one hand. It wasn't a serious game, but still it surprised me.