I wasn't aware that they were going the "variation" route with the castling rule. They did something similar with Rule 15A a few years ago.
It appears to me that the Rules Committee is punting the issue down to the local TD, I guess so the TD can tailor the rule to how he wants to do it. So I guess at the beginning of every tournament, a TD will have to state which variation is in effect for Rule 15A and Rule 10I2.
I don't think the rule book itself was unclear but the changes PDF is odd to me too. This is from page 27 in the new USCF official rules 6th edition 2014:
10-I-1: King touched first, or king and rook touched simultanously. 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 to move the king, or castle on the other side if legal. If the king has no legal move, then the player is free to choose any move.
10-I-2: Rook touched first. If a player intending to castle touches the rook first, there is no penalty except if castling is illegal, the player must move the rook if legal.
The PDF calls out changes since this publication - Does everyone now believe that the king must be touched first (only) so 10-I-2 is optionally either a rook-only move or a castle based on the TD?
By the way I played 12 USCF tournaments in the last year without hearing anything about this rule, ever, from anyone - especially a TD. TDs seem to care more about people recording their results, and not dropping out without warning.
yes I agree , I think the rule was intended to deal with the issue of what touched piece must move if castling proves to be illegal.
I don't think the rule book itself was unclear but the changes PDF is odd to me too. This is from page 27 in the new USCF official rules 6th edition 2014:
10-I-1: King touched first, or king and rook touched simultanously. 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 to move the king, or castle on the other side if legal. If the king has no legal move, then the player is free to choose any move.
10-I-2: Rook touched first. If a player intending to castle touches the rook first, there is no penalty except if castling is illegal, the player must move the rook if legal.
The PDF calls out changes since this publication - Does everyone now believe that the king must be touched first (only) so 10-I-2 is optionally either a rook-only move or a castle based on the TD?
By the way I played 12 USCF tournaments in the last year without hearing anything about this rule, ever, from anyone - especially a TD. TDs seem to care more about people recording their results, and not dropping out without warning.
So odd. Some unclarity is replaced by complete ambiguity. I think a comment made on the forums about another rule change is absolutely spot on: it seems that the USCF is punting the the decision to TDs. That's stupid, in my opinion. The rule of law is supposed to maintain clarity and uniformity in all matters, as best as possible. As it is now, we are left in a situation where pestering every TD is the way to go, asking for their interpretation of rules.
Hello, All!
What are these rule-writers doing?! The New rule for castling (found here: http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges.pdf) says the following:
"10I2. When castling, the King must be touched first."
&
"10I2 (Variation I). Castling is allowed if the Rook is touched first."
After reading the word "must" in the first line, I would think that it is...um...a necessity to touch the king first. Isn't that what "must" means? What in the world is the second sentence doing in the rules addendum, then? It seems to me that these sentences contradict one another. Can someone help me understand what's going on here. It seems like they could just say touching either piece first preserves castling rights, if that's what they mean. Don't they have some lawyers or language-obsessed philosophers around?