Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Castling

Castling is a unique defensive in chess that permits a to simultaneously safeguard their and reposition a , involving the moving two squares toward the on the same while the jumps to the square immediately adjacent to the on the opposite side. This move counts as a single turn and can occur on either the kingside (short castling, denoted as O-O) or queenside (long castling, denoted as O-O-O), provided specific conditions are met. To execute castling legally, neither nor the relevant may have previously moved during the game, no pieces can occupy the squares between them, must not be in , and it cannot pass through or land on a square under attack by an opponent's piece. During the procedure, the player first moves two squares in the direction of the , followed by the to the square has crossed over. These rules ensure castling enhances king safety by relocating it toward the board's edge while activating the for central control, making it a cornerstone of opening strategies in professional play. The origins of castling trace back to medieval chess variants, evolving from the "king's leap," a rule allowing the king to advance two squares in any direction on its first move as a special privilege. By the 14th or , this developed into a combined -rook in European chess, standardizing into its modern form around the to address the slow pace of king development and rook activation in earlier rulesets. Today, castling remains integral to the Laws of Chess, with adaptations in variants like Chess960 to accommodate randomized starting positions while preserving the move's strategic value.

Rules

Description

Castling is the only move in chess that permits two pieces—the and one of the same color—to be moved simultaneously, counting as a single move. This special maneuver allows the to advance two squares along its first rank toward the chosen , after which the is transferred to the square immediately adjacent to the on the opposite side of that path. There are two variants of castling, distinguished by the side of the board on which they occur. Kingside castling, often called short castling, involves the king moving from e1 (for ) or e8 (for ) to g1 or g8, respectively, with the h-file jumping from h1 or h8 to f1 or f8. Queenside castling, known as long castling, sees the king shift from e1 or e8 to c1 or c8, while the a-file moves from a1 or a8 to d1 or d8. In standard algebraic notation, these are recorded as 0-0 for kingside and 0-0-0 for queenside, respectively. The fundamental purposes of castling are to safeguard the king by positioning it behind a protective on the board's edge and to activate the by bringing it toward for greater influence over open files.

Requirements

Castling in chess is permitted only when specific legal conditions are satisfied, ensuring the move's defensive intent is upheld without exposing the king to undue risk. These conditions, as defined in the official rules, focus on the positional setup and the unmoved status of the involved pieces. The five core requirements for a valid castling move are as follows:
  1. Neither nor the chosen has previously moved during . This preserves the "castling rights," which are forfeited permanently if either has been moved at any point.
  2. There are no pieces or pawns positioned between and the chosen on the same . This ensures a clear path for the coordinated movement.
  3. is not currently in . Any attempt to castle while is under attack is illegal, as it would violate the fundamental rule against leaving in .
  4. must not pass through or land on any square that is attacked by an opponent's . This includes the squares traverses and its final position after the two-square shift, preventing exposure during the maneuver.
  5. and the chosen must be located on the same . This positional requirement confines castling to horizontal movement along the back .
Castling rights represent an implicit aspect of the chess , tracked throughout play even if not explicitly notated until the move occurs. These rights are associated with each independently (kingside and queenside) and remain intact unless the king or the specific rook moves; for instance, if a rook is captured without having moved, the corresponding castling right technically persists in the position's evaluation (e.g., for computer analysis or position reconstruction), though the move becomes impossible due to the rook's absence. Regarding edge cases, castling with a promoted is theoretically permissible under if the promoted qualifies as an unmoved on the same as , but this is practically impossible in standard chess. Promotion occurs on the opponent's back (eighth for , first for ), placing the new on a different from the king's starting position, and any subsequent movement to align it would forfeit the . Similarly, pawn promotions that place a new between and violate the clear-path condition, temporarily preventing castling until the obstruction is cleared, though the underlying remain if no prior movement has occurred.

Notation

In standard algebraic notation, the predominant system used in modern chess, kingside castling is recorded as 0-0 and queenside castling as 0-0-0. The numeral zero is used in official notation, though the letter O (O-O and O-O-O) is commonly used in practice and required in (PGN). officially recognized algebraic notation, including these castling symbols, as the sole standard for international tournaments starting in 1981, replacing earlier systems to promote uniformity. In older descriptive notation systems, prevalent before the 1980s, castling was typically notated using the same O-O and O-O-O symbols for consistency, though some texts explicitly described it as "castles (K-side)" or "castles (Q-side)" to convey the action descriptively. Rarely, particularly in very early or informal records, the maneuver might be implied contextually through sequential piece moves, such as notating the king's shift to the rook's file alongside the rook's repositioning, but this approach was uncommon and quickly superseded by symbolic notation. Portable Game Notation (PGN), a text-based standard for storing and sharing chess games digitally, encodes castling identically with O-O and O-O-O in the move sequence, simplifying game records by representing the dual king-rook movement as a single entry rather than two separate moves. This concise format reduces file size and parsing complexity for software, while the optional FEN (Forsyth-Edwards Notation) tag in PGN headers tracks castling rights explicitly—using "K" for white kingside, "Q" for white queenside, "k" for black kingside, "q" for black queenside, or "-" if none remain available—allowing engines to validate legality throughout the game. For special cases, such as when castling rights are lost mid-game (e.g., due to or movement), PGN move sequences simply omit O-O or O-O-O, as the action becomes illegal; the updated rights are reflected in any embedded FEN positions. In chess puzzles or studies, where partial positions might retain or deny specific rights, FEN is commonly used to specify availability precisely, ensuring the notation aligns with the puzzle's constraints without altering the core O-O symbols.

Tournament rules

In official FIDE competitions, an attempt to castle illegally is classified as an illegal move under Article 7.5 of the Laws of Chess, which occurs once the player presses the clock after completing the move. The position is then reinstated to its state prior to the illegal move, and the player must make a legal move instead. For the first illegal move in a standard time control game, the arbiter adds two minutes to the opponent's clock; the second illegal move results in loss of the game unless the position is such that the opponent cannot win by . This penalty aligns with the in Article 4.4, where a player who touches their and intending to must do so if legal, but if castling is illegal, they must instead make another legal move with the . Time controls significantly influence castling decisions and enforcement in tournaments. In rapidplay games (more than 10 minutes but less than 60 minutes per player, per Appendix A), illegal moves follow rules in Appendix A: 1 minute is added to the opponent's clock for the first illegal move, and the second results in loss; the arbiter or opponent may intervene only before the opponent makes their next move, after which the illegal move cannot be corrected without mutual agreement, and no take-backs are permitted under strict rules. Blitz games (10 minutes or less per player, per Appendix B) follow rapidplay rules for irregularities, emphasizing quick resolution, where an illegal castling attempt can lead to immediate loss if it is the second illegal move and claimed promptly by the opponent, heightening the pressure to verify castling eligibility before attempting the move. In disputes over castling validity, the arbiter plays a central in as outlined in Article 12, ensuring compliance with the Laws by verifying castling rights through scoresheets, player testimony, or digital records if available. The arbiter may adjust clocks, reinstate positions, or impose penalties based on evidence, and in tournaments requiring notation, discrepancies in recorded castling rights can prompt to confirm no prior or movement occurred. The Laws of Chess, taking effect from 1 January 2023, maintain these core tournament regulations without specific new clarifications on electronic boards for detecting illegal castling, though such boards must comply with overall FIDE standards for in supervised events.

Castling rights

In chess programming, castling rights refer to the persistent game state attributes that determine whether a player retains the option to perform kingside or queenside castling. These rights are typically tracked using four boolean flags in chess engines: one each for white's kingside, white's queenside, black's kingside, and black's queenside castling availability. These flags start as true in the initial position and remain so until explicitly forfeited, allowing engines to efficiently evaluate potential future castling moves without recalculating basic eligibility each time. Castling rights are lost permanently through specific mechanisms outlined in the official rules. The right is forfeited if the king has moved at any point, as this indicates the king is no longer in its for safe relocation. Similarly, movement of the relevant —whether the h-file rook for kingside or a-file rook for queenside—eliminates the right for that side, even if the rook returns to its starting square. In computer chess analysis, castling rights significantly influence position evaluation functions, as retaining them provides strategic advantages like improved king safety and enhanced rook connectivity. Modern engines, such as Stockfish, incorporate these rights into their scoring algorithms, often assigning a bonus equivalent to 0.5 to 1 pawn for available options, reflecting their impact on overall position strength. During endgame evaluation, Stockfish relies on Syzygy tablebases, which exclude positions with active castling rights to simplify storage and probing, assuming such rights are irrelevant in typical endgames with reduced material. In Forsyth-Edwards Notation (FEN), these rights are briefly denoted by the letters K (white kingside), Q (white queenside), k (black kingside), q (black queenside), or - if none apply.

History

Origins

The origins of castling trace back to the "king's leap" rule in medieval European chess, which permitted the king to advance up to two squares in any direction—including orthogonally or diagonally—on its first move, often to escape early threats on the open board. This special privilege for the king first appears in documented form in the 13th-century Spanish manuscript Libro de los juegos, commissioned by Alfonso X of Castile around 1283, where it served as a defensive mechanism in a game where the queen and bishop had limited mobility. By the 14th century, variations of the king's leap were referenced in Italian and broader European texts as a precursor to coordinated king-rook maneuvers, allowing the king to "leap" to safer positions while the rook could reposition aggressively, though without a unified single-move procedure. The transition to a distinct castling move emerged in the late amid the "modern" chess reforms that empowered and , necessitating quicker king safety. The earliest explicit description of a castling variant appears in the anonymous , a Latin text from around 1500 held at the , which depicts the procedure as the rook first moving adjacent to the followed by the moving two squares toward the rook's original position. This form differed markedly from today's version, consisting of two separate moves rather than a single combined action. Shortly thereafter, Ramírez de Lucena's Repetición de amores y arte de ajedrez con 101 juegos de partido (1497), the first printed book on modern chess, described castling as two separate moves: first the moves adjacent to the , and then, on the next move, the leaps to the opposite side of the , reflecting ongoing experimentation in chess circles. These early iterations spread from the and northward to France and through traveling players and printed treatises, with regional differences persisting; for instance, Italian players favored "free castling" allowing flexible rook placements beyond strict adjacency. Digitized versions of key manuscripts, such as the Göttingen text available through academic archives, have confirmed these pre-1500 variants via paleographic analysis, highlighting castling's roots in adapting the king's leap to faster-paced games without formal codification.

Standardization

The standardization of castling rules in the marked a pivotal shift toward uniformity in chess, driven by efforts to eliminate regional variations and streamline the move for competitive play. In the 1840s, prominent chess organizer advocated for the adoption of the modern form of castling, where moves two squares toward the , followed by the rook jumping to the adjacent square on the opposite side of . This was formalized in the London rules around this period, which emphasized the two-square king movement to replace earlier flexible interpretations and promote consistency across matches. By the 1860s, major chess clubs in and beyond began widely adopting these London-influenced rules, phasing out alternative practices such as "free castling," which had allowed the and to end in various positions as long as they did not attack enemy pieces. This adoption was evident in tournaments and play, where the standardized two-square move became the norm, reducing disputes and enhancing fairness. Regional differences, including the "Rochade" variants that permitted more permissive placements similar to free castling, were gradually resolved through these -level unifications, aligning continental practices with the model. The establishment of the Fédération Internationale des Échecs () in played a crucial role in codifying castling for international competition, incorporating the two-square rule and addressing lingering ambiguities, such as whether could pass through a checked square during the move. These early FIDE laws helped enforce uniformity by specifying that the squares traversed or occupied by must not be . Post-World War II, FIDE further refined the rules in the 1950s, particularly at the 1953 Schaffhausen Congress, where tweaks clarified the sequence of the move—requiring to be touched first—and explicitly prohibited castling if would pass through or land in , eliminating potential loopholes in composed positions or irregular setups.

Strategy and Tactics

Strategic role

Castling plays a pivotal role in by enhancing king safety, particularly during the opening and early middlegame phases. By relocating from the vulnerable central squares (e1 or e8) to a more fortified corner position, such as g1 or h1 for on the kingside, castling shields the from potential pawn storms, discovered checks, and central attacks that arise from rapid . This maneuver positions behind a of s, typically supported by the on f1 or , creating a defensive that reduces exposure to tactical threats and allows the player to focus on offensive operations elsewhere on the board. In classical openings, this safety net is crucial as the center opens up, where uncastled kings often become targets for aggressive pawn advances or incursions. Beyond protection, castling facilitates efficient development without expending additional , aligning with core opening principles of rapid . The moves to a semi-open or central —such as the f-file after kingside castling—where it can immediately contest key lines, support breaks, or exert pressure on the opponent's . This dual-purpose move connects the rooks, enabling coordinated action and often accelerating over open files that emerge from exchanges. In contrast to manual king walks or isolated rook maneuvers, castling achieves these goals in a single turn, preserving the initiative and advantage essential for positional dominance. Empirical data from large chess databases underscores castling's ubiquity in high-level play, with approximately 97% of games (as of a analysis of over 2 million games) featuring at least one side castling by move 20, with kingside castling comprising around 90% of all instances. This high frequency reflects its alignment with fundamental opening tenets: safeguarding while promoting piece harmony. In modern theory, castling integrates seamlessly with hypermodern openings, where pioneers like advocated delaying the move to maintain flexibility, fianchetto bishops for long-range control, and provoke overextension before committing . Such approaches, seen in lines like the Nimzo-Indian Defense, allow castling to serve as a responsive tool rather than an early obligation, adapting to dynamic board conditions while still securing long-term advantages.

Tactical uses

Castling serves as a key enabler for offensive tactics by swiftly repositioning the to a more active square, allowing it to participate in immediate threats such as along open files. In kingside castling, the moves to f1, where it can align with to form a powerful on the f-file, pressuring the opponent's position if central pawns are exchanged or advanced. More aggressively, in opposite-side castling scenarios, queenside castling positions the on d1, facilitating rapid development toward the opponent's kingside; a common motif involves a on h7 (or h2), opening the h-file for a devastating that exploits the exposed castled . Defensive traps often arise from misjudging the safety of castling, particularly when the move inadvertently exposes to counterattacks. Castling is illegal if is in , passes through an attacked square, or lands in ( Laws of Chess, Article 3.8). Players may overlook such threats along the castling path, leading to blunders that forfeit the opportunity. Additionally, castling can deliver a discovered itself, as the rook's relocation to f1 or d1 may uncover an attack from a back-rank piece like a or , catching the opponent off guard and forcing immediate responses. Queenside castling introduces specific vulnerabilities due to the king's placement on c1 (or c8 for ), exposing it to pins and s along the open c- or adjacent diagonals. An enemy or on the c-file can deliver direct (e.g., Rc1+), pin the king against loose pieces, or set up nets, especially if the king remains on the file without prophylactic moves like Kb1. Long diagonals, such as those from or , further exacerbate risks, where bishops can the king and or pin supporting units, turning the castled position into a tactical liability if pawn cover is inadequate. AI systems like have uncovered unconventional castling lines through self-play, particularly in rule variants, revealing novel tactical motifs such as delayed castling to maintain flexibility or alternative king maneuvers that mimic castling's benefits while avoiding standard pitfalls. In standard chess, these insights highlight how castling can integrate with aggressive piece coordination, as seen in 's games where timely castling amplifies activity in unbalanced positions.

Examples

Korchnoi vs. Karpov (1978)

Game 31 of the 1978 World Chess Championship match, held in Baguio City, , marked a turning point as , playing White, defeated defending champion to tie the match score at 5–5. With Karpov leading 5–2 after game 27, Korchnoi's comeback in games 28–31, including this victory on October 12, 1978, demonstrated his resilience amid the match's intense psychological pressure and controversies. The game arose from the , exchange variation (ECO D35), where Korchnoi's solid play in the middlegame transitioned into a favorable . Karpov, as , castled kingside on move 6 (6...O-O), while Korchnoi followed on move 10 (10. O-O), preserving castling rights early but committing to kingside safety in a structure that favored central . Karpov's setup aimed for queenside counterplay, but his delay in advancing pawns and developing pieces allowed Korchnoi to maintain pressure without immediate tactical confrontation. The key around move 20 highlighted this dynamic: 20. Na4 Bf8 21. Nc5 Re7 22. Kf1 Ne8 23. Ke2 Nd6 24. Kd3 Rce8, where Korchnoi centralized his , restricting Karpov's maneuvers. This exploited the closed nature of the exchange variation, where Black's passive rooks on the e-file failed to challenge White's growing initiative on the queenside. The game extended into a 71-move endgame, where Korchnoi won a and created a passed b-pawn, ultimately forcing after 71. Rh7 as Karpov's could not stop the promotion threat. Korchnoi's victory underscored the dangers of delaying active counterplay in symmetrical openings, where even subtle strategic miscalculations can lead to positional collapse and loss of the initiative. This outcome forced a decisive 32nd game, emphasizing how preserving flexibility in development—such as options for artificial safety—can be critical when standard castling limits mobility.

Heidenfeld vs. Kerins (1973)

The game between Wolfgang Heidenfeld (White) and Noel Kerins (Black) was played in the Armstrong Cup, a club league competition, in 1973. It arose from the French Defense: Alapin Gambit (ECO C00) and lasted 40 moves, ending in Black's victory by resignation. The encounter gained notoriety as a curiosity in chess history due to its three castling attempts, two by White and one by Black, with White's second castling being illegal under rules. Neither player nor spectators noticed the irregularity during play, allowing the game to proceed uninterrupted. The move sequence highlights the castling maneuvers as pivotal elements. White opened aggressively with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Nf3 Qb6 8.Qd2 c4 9.Be2 Na5, castling kingside on move 10 with O-O. responded by advancing in the center and castling queenside on move 16 (O-O-O) following 15...Be6 16.Qg2, connecting the s while supporting the queenside . The game developed into a complex middlegame with White pushing pawns on the kingside and countering with rook activity and trades, including 26...Bxb1 and 30...Bxf3. By move 32, after 31...Rxh2 32.d5 Qf5, White was under pressure with an exposed and isolated pawns. The critical moment came on move 33, when White played O-O-O, attempting queenside castling. This was invalid because White's king had already moved from its original square during the kingside castling on move 10, forfeiting all castling rights per Laws of Chess (Article 3.8.2: castling is prohibited if the king has previously moved). The illegal move effectively "bypassed" the rule by repositioning to c1 and to d1 without penalty at the time, temporarily activating White's queenside and centralizing the king for . However, it did not alter the strategic imbalance; Black continued with 33...Rh3, infiltrating the second rank and leading to exchanges that favored Black's coordinated knights and . The game concluded after 40.d7+ Nxd7, with White resigning due to Black's material and positional superiority. This oversight underscores how castling rights preserve king safety and rook connectivity, and their violation can lead to unintended positional gains or losses if undetected. The position after White's illegal 33.O-O-O formed a tense configuration where Black's rook on h3 and queen on f5 dominated open files, pinning White's pieces and threatening infiltration, while White's advanced d- and e-pawns offered counterplay but were vulnerable to Black's knights on e7 and c6. No immediate mating net existed, but Black's control established a winning endgame edge.

Averbakh vs. Purdy (1960)

In the 1960 Australian Chess Championship held in , Soviet faced Australian master Cecil J. S. Purdy in round 4 on October 8. This international featured Averbakh as a prominent guest participant alongside local players, highlighting Purdy's home advantage but ultimately showcasing Averbakh's superior understanding of positional play. The game arose from an (ECO A16), where early exchanges simplified the position, leaving White with a rook on b1 exerting pressure along the semi-open b-file after Black's b-pawn recaptured on c6 following queenside captures. A pivotal moment occurred on move 14, when Purdy, playing , executed queenside castling (O-O-O), moving his to c8 and to d8. This long castling maneuver, intended to connect rooks and activate the queenside, immediately drew an objection from Averbakh, who argued that 's traversed the b8 square, which was attacked by White's on b1. Under rules, however, only the king is prohibited from passing through or landing on an attacked square during castling; the may pass over such squares without issue. The director upheld the move as legal, allowing play to continue, though the incident underscored a rare rules misunderstanding by a like Averbakh. Post-castling, the position exposed Black's on the queenside, with White's on now directly infiltrating the b-file toward the vulnerable c8 square. Averbakh responded precisely with 15. Nb3, attacking the c5 and repositioning the to support further pressure, while Purdy captured 15...Bxc4 to regain material but further opened lines. The key sequence unfolded as White developed with 16. and 17. , followed by 18. Kf2 to tuck the safely and advance the initiative. By move 21, Rhd1 doubled rooks on the d-file, but the b-file remained the highway for White's assault: 22. Nxa7 targeted the a7 , forcing 22...Ra8, then 23. Nb5+ exchanged pieces while maintaining rook access. This infiltration culminated in White's rooks dominating the b-file, with 27. Rb6+ and 28. Rb7+ driving the king from c7 to c8, exposing it to further checks and material loss. Averbakh won decisively on move 48 after Black resigned in a lost . The position after 14...O-O-O illustrated Black's vulnerability: White's Rb1 unchallenged on the b-, Black's king on c8 adjacent to the open file, pawns fragmented on c6 and e5, and no immediate counterplay against the rook's potential to infiltrate b7 or b8. This setup highlighted the risks of queenside castling in semi-open positions where the opponent's rook already pressures the file. The game serves as a cautionary example of balancing rapid against king safety, particularly in middlegames with closed centers but open flank files. Purdy's castling activated his but invited a rook-based , demonstrating how long castling can backfire if the queenside lacks cover or defensive resources. In closed or semi-closed structures, such as this variation, players must prioritize fortifying the castling side before committing the , lest infiltration turns a developmental gain into a fatal exposure.

Edward Lasker vs. George Thomas (1912)

The game between (White) and Sir George Alan Thomas (Black) was played on October 29, 1912, at the City of London Chess Club in London, England, as a casual encounter during Lasker's first visit to the country. Lasker, a German-born player who would later become a prominent figure in American chess, faced Thomas, a British master known for his endgame expertise. The encounter unfolded in the Horwitz Defense (ECO A40), where Lasker's aggressive development and early kingside castling positioned his rooks for decisive action in a stunning tactical sequence. This castling not only secured the king but activated the f1-rook, enabling it to join the attack after the queen sacrifice on move 11. The game progressed as follows: 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 d6 3. e4 dxe5 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. O-O Qf6 7. Nc3 O-O-O 8. Bg5 Qg6 9. Nd5 Kd7 10. Bxd8 Nxd8 11. Qxh7 Rxh7 12. Nxc7 Rb8 13. Nxe5+ Ke7 14. Nxg6+ fxg6 15. b6 16. Rfd1 Ne6 17. Rd7+ Kf6 18. Kd2#. Lasker's kingside castling on move 6 connected his rooks behind the e-pawn, allowing the f1-rook to maneuver to on move 16 and then to d7 on move 17 for a decisive check. This setup forced Black's king into the open, culminating in the queen sacrifice on h7 that shattered Black's kingside defenses and initiated an unstoppable knight rampage. Although Lasker opted for the efficient 18. Kd2# to deliver , an alternative 18. Rf7# with the a1-rook would have highlighted the rooks' coordination even more dramatically, as noted in later analyses. The early castling proved pivotal, transforming passive rooks into aggressive attackers in the combination. This encounter has endured as a cultural touchstone in chess for its aesthetic brilliance and instructional value, often anthologized as a prime example of a "king hunt" and queen sacrifice leading to forced . himself recounted the game fondly in interviews, emphasizing its spontaneity during a rapid-play session, and it has inspired countless tactical studies and videos, underscoring castling's role in activation. The game's elegance lies in its seamless blend of strategic development and tactical fireworks, making it a perennial favorite for demonstrating how castling can fuel offensive potential.

Prins vs. Day (1968)

In the qualifying rounds of the 1968 Lugano Chess Olympiad, Canadian International Master Lawrence Day faced Dutch International Master Lodewijk Prins in a Sicilian Defense game that highlighted the tactical potency of preserved castling rights. Day, playing black, developed an aggressive attack against Prins's exposed king, which had been lured from its castled position by earlier sacrifices and checks. The position after 22...hxg4 left white's king on f1, with scattered forces and limited coordination, setting the stage for black's decisive combination. The sequence unfolded on move 23 with white's Ne1, allowing 23...Rh1+ 24. Kf2 g3 25. Kxg3 Rxe1+ 26. Qxe1 Qxg2+ 27. Kf4 g5+ 28. Ke5 Qe4+, at which point Prins . The resignation was prompted by the inevitable via 29. Qxe4 dxe4 30. O-O-O#, where black's queenside castling places the on d8, delivering to the king on h8 with support from the queen on g6 and . This finish relied on Day's a8 remaining unmoved throughout the opening and middlegame, preserving the castling option despite the h8 rook's earlier deployment to h1. This illustrates the critical need to track castling rights in intense, team-based competition like the , where a single overlooked opportunity can secure . Day's strategic restraint in not mobilizing the queenside earlier enabled the threat, turning a complex middlegame into a memorable finish. Under 1968 FIDE rules, no penalties applied to such maneuvers, reinforcing the emphasis on vigilance against opponent castling possibilities in high-pressure environments.

Feuer vs. O'Kelly (1934)

In the 1934 Belgian Championship held in , Albéric O'Kelly de Galway, playing Black against Otto Feuer, faced an aggressive attack in a opening that threatened rapid development and central control for White. O'Kelly's decision to grab a with 8...Rxb2? aimed to counter White's initiative but exposed his rook to a tactical refutation, underscoring the risks of delaying king safety. The critical sequence unfolded after 8.Be3 Rxb2 9.dxe5 fxe5 10.Nxe5 fxe5 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8, when White's 12.O-O-O+ delivered with the while attacked the hanging rook on b2. Although the game is often cited for White's tactical brilliance, it illustrates how timely castling can secure against central threats, as White's simultaneously protected his and shifted the balance. Black resigned after 12...Kc7 13.Rd1, as the rook could not escape capture without further losses. Post-castling, White's initiative surged, with the rook on d1 dominating the d-file and Black's uncoordinated pieces unable to mount counterplay. This outcome highlighted castling's role in transitioning from defense to attack, allowing White to consolidate material gains while Black's exposed king remained vulnerable.

Fischer vs. Najdorf (1962)

In the second round of the 1962 Chess Olympiad in Varna, Bulgaria, Bobby Fischer, representing the United States, faced Miguel Najdorf of Argentina in a high-stakes encounter on board one. Playing white, Fischer opted for the Sicilian Defense, Najdorf Variation, a system named after his opponent and known for its dynamic counterplay on the queenside. With 6.h3, Fischer prophylactically prevented Black's ...Bg4 pin while preparing central expansion, leading to the critical 7.Nd5 exchange that disrupted Black's development. Black's recapture 8...gxf6 shattered the kingside pawn shield and revoked castling rights, leaving the black king vulnerable in the center—a key factor in White's subsequent aggression. Fischer's kingside castling on move 11 (11.O-O) proved pivotal, securing his own monarch while freeing the for immediate action on the e-file with 12.Re1. This "delayed" castling—in the context of the sharp opening where White often develops rapidly without it—allowed Fischer to maintain flexibility before committing, ultimately launching a devastating central and kingside . Najdorf, true to the variation's strategic blueprint, prioritized queenside expansion with ...a6 and ...b5, but this focus left the center underprotected. The exchange sacrifice 14.Rxe4 dxe4 opened lines, and White's knight sortie 15.Nf5 followed by 16.Ng7+ Ke7 17.Nf5+ Ke8 chased the black king into the open, exploiting the lost castling rights and gaining crucial tempi. In his annotations to the game in , Fischer highlighted the tempo-gaining 13.Qa4+ as essential for coordinating the pieces, underscoring how preserving the initiative and denying Black safety outweighed material considerations. The culmination arrived after 18.Be3 Bxe3 19.fxe3, when White's rooks infiltrated with 20.Rd1 and 21.Rd6, pinning Black's forces. Najdorf's 22...Qc7 attempted counterplay, but 23.Bxf7+ Kd8 exposed the king's plight, forcing on move 24 after 24.Be6, as White's rook on d6 dominates and threats like Qf7 loom inescapably. notes emphasize that Black's early pawn grabs and queenside ambitions squandered tempi, allowing White's harmonious development to overwhelm the exposed . The rooks' tactical coordination post-castling exemplified their power in open positions, delivering checks and pins that sealed the brilliancy. The breakthrough position after 23.Bxf7+ features White's king safely castled on g1, rook on d6 attacking the knight on d7, bishop on f7 forking king and rook, queen on b3 eyeing f7, and knight on f5 pressuring e7; Black's king stands isolated on d8, pawns fractured on f6 and e4, with no defensive resources amid the material imbalance.

Variations and Extensions

Artificial castling

Artificial castling, also known as castling by hand, is a strategic in chess consisting of a series of legal moves that replicate the positional effects of standard castling—relocating the to a safer position and the to a more central square—without executing the special castling rule itself. This technique is employed when castling rights have been forfeited, typically due to prior movement of the or , or when the position prevents the standard procedure, such as blocked paths or checks along the way. For instance, White might achieve a queenside equivalent by detouring the to c1 through intermediate squares like b2 or d2, while swinging the to d1, often requiring at least three moves to complete. The concept has appeared in chess puzzles and literature since the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where composers devised positions demanding such detours to secure the king amid complex setups. A common example occurs after an early king move, such as in the variation where Black's king has moved to f7; Black can then maneuver the king to g8 and to f8 over multiple moves to mimic kingside castling. In modern endgames, artificial castling remains relevant for centralizing the king or shielding it from threats when no castling is possible, allowing players to transition pieces efficiently without the one-move convenience of the rule. This approach offers advantages in flexibility, enabling customized placement that suits the position's demands and potentially surprising opponents by avoiding predictable patterns, while also activating the sooner in some lines. However, it carries risks, as the multi-move process can temporarily expose the to attacks or , consuming valuable tempi in sharp middlegames.

Castling in chess variants

In chess variants, castling rules are frequently adapted, omitted, or replaced to suit the altered board, pieces, or objectives, reflecting the creative modifications that distinguish these games from standard chess. These changes can preserve the strategic intent of safety and activation while accommodating unique mechanics, such as non-standard starting positions or board geometries. One prominent example is , also known as Chess960, where the back-rank pieces are randomized before the game begins, with the king placed between the two s to enable castling. Here, castling follows standard conditions—neither the king nor the chosen has moved, the king is not in or passing through , and intervening squares are empty—but the final positions mirror those in orthodox chess: the king ends on g1 (or g8) for kingside and c1 (or c8) for queenside, with the adjacent. This adjustment ensures the "jumps" over any intervening pieces if necessary, maintaining the move's utility despite the shuffled setup. The variant was invented by in 1996 to reduce opening theory dominance, and its rules were formalized by for official competitions. In cylindrical chess, the board's a- and h-files are connected, forming a seamless that alters piece movement paths, particularly for , queens, and bishops. Castling is permitted but modified: the unmoved moves two squares toward an unmoved , and the rook relocates to the square immediately adjacent to the king on the opposite side, regardless of the cylindrical topology affecting other moves. This preserves the defensive maneuver while accounting for the infinite horizontal looping, though some implementations omit castling entirely to emphasize the variant's tactical openness. The game, dating back to the , highlights how geometric changes necessitate rule tweaks for balance. Certain historical and regional variants lack castling equivalents altogether, prioritizing direct king mobility or confined royal movement. , the medieval precursor to modern chess originating in 6th-century and popularized in Persia and the , features no castling; the king moves only one square orthogonally or diagonally, akin to a limited fers, leaving royal protection to manual piece coordination. Similarly, xiangqi (Chinese chess), which evolved independently from influences around the 4th century, confines the king (jiang) to a 3x3 and prohibits any castling-like leap, with rooks (che) moving unrestricted but without special pairing rules. These omissions stem from the variants' emphasis on open warfare and perpetual threats, contrasting with Western chess's later innovations for king safekeeping. Custom castling rules appear in explosive or suicidal variants to integrate the core mechanic with the game's destructive theme. In , castling adheres to orthodox conditions but carries heightened risk: while the move itself involves no capture and thus no immediate explosion, the king's relocation can expose it to subsequent captures that trigger chain reactions, annihilating surrounding non-pawn pieces—including potentially the king for victory. This amplifies castling's strategic weight, as players must evaluate explosion radii post-move. Invented in the 1990s, atomic chess exemplifies how variants repurpose castling for chaotic dynamics. Emerging variants since 2020 often extend castling to accommodate multiple kings or , fostering complex royal protections. For instance, in designs featuring duplicate royalty—such as those with two kings per side—castling may allow pairing any unmoved king with an eligible , provided standard restrictions apply, to simulate layered defenses. These adaptations, explored in online communities and software implementations, expand tactical depth without violating core chess principles, though specific rules vary by creator to prevent paradoxes like dual checkmates. Such innovations continue to evolve through digital platforms, blending tradition with experimentation.

Castling in chess problems

In chess problems, castling often serves as a pivotal element, either as the solving or a condition to verify through analysis, adding layers of complexity to directmates, stalemates, and puzzles. Composers exploit its dual nature as both a safety maneuver and a potential attacking , creating positions where the move's legality hinges on prior game history or strategic necessity. One common application appears in directmate problems, where castling constitutes the key move to deliver . For instance, in certain two-mover compositions, white's only path to involves queenside castling, repositioning the to control critical lines while the king escapes , forcing black into a . Such problems emphasize timing, as castling must evade checks on the king's path and squares. Similarly, in studies, castling can be the final move that exhausts the opponent's options without placing their king in ; compositions demonstrate this as early as 33 half-moves from the starting position, requiring precise piece coordination to block all replies. Retrograde analysis problems frequently revolve around validating castling , compelling solvers to reconstruct prior moves and captures to confirm if the king or rook has relocated. Under the of Chess 2009, castling is assumed legal unless retrograde proof demonstrates otherwise, such as a rook's implying prior movement. When interlink with other special rules—like captures—partial retrograde analysis (PRA) resolves ambiguities by prioritizing the solution that enables both, ensuring unique play while maintaining positional integrity. This analytical depth distinguishes retrograde puzzles, where disproving castling can unlock alternative lines or expose illegal setups. Standard rights tracking, based on untouched king-rook pairs and clear paths, underpins these determinations without altering core rules. For novelty and artistic flair, composers introduce illegal or unconventional castling variants to challenge perceptions and highlight rule nuances. A seminal example is Tim Krabbé's mate-in-three problem published in Schaakbulletin, featuring "vertical castling" via a newly promoted on the e-file, allowing the king to shift upward two squares in a loophole that later closed by mandating same-rank placement. Such illegal constructs, like phantom castling with moved pieces, appear in joke or proof-game problems to provoke debate on legality, fostering creative exploration beyond orthodox play. Advancements in digital tools have revolutionized problem composition in the , with enabling automated generation of castling-inclusive puzzles. A 2025 Google framework employs with rewards for counter-intuitiveness and diversity, producing novel mates and studies at rates 10 times higher than traditional methods, including scenarios where castling resolves tactical ambiguities. These AI composers, benchmarked against grandmaster-approved datasets, prioritize aesthetic and solvable themes, expanding access to retrograde and novelty problems for solvers worldwide.

Nomenclature

English and standard terms

In chess, the standard English term for the special defensive maneuver involving the king and one rook is "castling," as codified in the official FIDE Laws of Chess, where it is defined as a single move executed by transferring the king two squares toward the rook and then placing the rook on the adjacent square the king has crossed. This terminology distinguishes the action from ordinary piece movements and emphasizes its role in safeguarding the king while activating the rook. Castling is further specified as "kingside castling," performed with the on the h-file (resulting in the moving to g1 or g8), or "queenside castling," with the on the a-file ( to c1 or c8), reflecting the board's traditional division into king's and queen's sides. The pieces central to this move are the "," which initiates the action by being touched first under touch-move rules, and the "," whose name derives from the Persian "rukh" () but evokes a in English due to its fortification in medieval representations. A key technical concept is the "right to castle," which denotes a player's eligibility to perform the move and is forfeited if the king or the relevant has previously moved, or temporarily prevented if the path is obstructed or under attack. In standard algebraic notation, endorsed by , kingside castling is recorded as O-O and queenside as O-O-O, serving as symbolic shorthand that avoids specifying exact squares since the move's outcome is fixed when conditions are met. The term "castling" emerged in English chess literature during the , marking the standardization of the move from its earlier incarnation as the "king's leap" in medieval variants, where the king could jump once to evade threats.

International variations

In languages, the term for castling often derives from the rook's association with a fortress or tower. In , it is known as roque; in , rochade, a word borrowed from influences during the standardization of chess rules. In , the term is enroque, emphasizing the rook's (torre) role in the maneuver, while in , it is arrocco, reflecting the action of "besieging" or fortifying the king. These terms highlight chess's spread across in the 15th to 17th centuries, adapting to local while retaining the protective . Beyond , non-Western languages have developed equivalents that phonetically adapt or translate the concept. In , castling is rokirovka (рокировка), derived from the verb rokirovat' (to castle), which itself stems from the rocade introduced in the during Russia's embrace of international chess competitions, mirroring the game's tactical depth in and play. In , it is wáng chē yì wèi (王车易位), literally "king and interchange positions," a direct introduced in the early as Western chess (xī yáng qí) arrived via missionaries and diplomats, contrasting with traditional xiangqi where no equivalent exists. The phonetic rendering wáng chē echoes the rook's origins while simplifying the move's mechanics for speakers. The English term "castling" culturally ties to the rook's evolution from a Persian chariot (rukh) to a European tower symbol, evoking the king seeking refuge within castle walls for safety—a metaphor formalized in 17th-century rulebooks. This symbolism underscores castling's role in king protection, influencing global nomenclature. In emerging chess nations of the 2020s, such as those in and , federations affiliated with have localized terms to promote accessibility, reflecting chess's expansion amid FIDE's global initiatives.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] FIDE LAWS of CHESS
    3 Chess960 Castling Rules a. Chess960 allows each player to castle once per game, a move by potentially both the king and rook in a single move. However, a few ...
  2. [2]
    The Evolution of Modern Chess Rules: Castling
    May 18, 2021 · The castling move is a descendant of the "king's leap" in Medieval chess, when the king on its first move was allowed two squares in any direction.
  3. [3]
    [PDF] CASTLING - US Chess Federation
    Castling is a chess move where the king moves two squares towards a rook, and the rook moves to the king's crossed square. It can only be done once, and if the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  4. [4]
    [PDF] 8. Castling - U.S. Chess Center
    Castling. Page 8-1. Objective: Correctly apply the rules of castling. The ... Kingside castling is notated as 0-0. Queenside castling is notated as 0-0-0 ...
  5. [5]
    FIDE Handbook FIDE Laws of Chess taking effect from 1 January 2023
    When castling on a physical board with a human player, it is recommended that the king be moved outside the playing surface next to his/her final position, the ...
  6. [6]
    Algebraic Chess Notation - Chessprogramming wiki
    Castling is indicated by the special notations, "O-O" for kingside castling and "O-O-O" for queenside castling. While the FIDE handbook uses the digit zero, the ...Missing: approval | Show results with:approval
  7. [7]
    Algebraic Notation in Chess
    Mar 17, 2021 · Algebraic notation is the most widely used method to represent chess moves and is the only one endorsed by FIDE since 1981.Missing: approval 1980s
  8. [8]
    How to Read Descriptive Notation - Chess.com
    Sep 3, 2024 · We notate castling the same way as in algebraic notation: 0-0 for kingside (short castle) and 0-0-0 for queenside (long castle). You may also ...
  9. [9]
    Portable Game Notation Specification and Implementation Guide
    PGN is "Portable Game Notation", a standard designed for the representation of chess game data using ASCII text files. PGN is structured for easy reading and ...
  10. [10]
    https://www.fide.com/news/2022-fide-laws-of-chess-update
  11. [11]
    Castling Rights - Chessprogramming wiki
    The Castling Rights specify whether both sides are principally able to castle king- or queen side, now or later during the game.
  12. [12]
    Threefold repetition in view of castling rights - Chess Stack Exchange
    Mar 10, 2019 · It should read "The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved, or the rook is captured." Indeed, that is how I hope an ...Does permanent loss of castling rights reset three fold repetition?Why is castling through and out of check prohibited?More results from chess.stackexchange.com
  13. [13]
    engines - How important is castling? How much is it worth?
    Jul 19, 2017 · Castling is an engine parameter and is well defined in chess engine programming. It does have objective value. SmallChess. – SmallChess. 2017 ...Should a chess engine be aware of opposite-side castling?How to objectively explain a positional advantage is worth a ...More results from chess.stackexchange.com
  14. [14]
    Endgame Tablebases - Chessprogramming wiki
    Positions with non-null castling rights could be represented in an EGTB but typically are not. The term Tablebase opposed to endgame database was coined by ...
  15. [15]
    Syzygy endgame tablebase probing - python-chess - Read the Docs
    Positions with castling rights are not included. Ensure tablebase files match the known checksums.
  16. [16]
    FEN Notation
    16.1.3: Data fields FEN specifies the piece placement, the active color, the castling availability, the en passant target square, the halfmove clock, and the ...
  17. [17]
    Kasparov, The King's Gambit and Opening Theory Before Castling
    Jan 2, 2018 · ... first books on modern chess were written. Here's an example from the Göttingen Manuscript (Spain, c. 1500-1510):. 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 Nc6 4 ...Missing: earliest | Show results with:earliest
  18. [18]
    Medieval chess and variants - St. Thomas guild
    Feb 7, 2014 · The following rules for medieval chess are those of the 'basic' Shatranj, which was most widely played and described in medieval (chess) manuscripts.Missing: castling | Show results with:castling
  19. [19]
    Castling when in check - Board & Card Games Stack Exchange
    Jan 31, 2016 · In the Göttingen manuscript (c. 1500) and a game published by Luis Ramírez de Lucena in 1498, castling consisted of two moves: first the rook ...
  20. [20]
    How did chess rules like en passant and castling originally develop?
    Oct 3, 2019 · ... 1497: Repetición de Amores y Arte de Ajedrez con 101 Juegos de Partido. Lucena describes castling occurring as two separate moves. First the ...Seeking chess rules from about 1400 AD - RedditWhat is the earliest period of history that I, a modern man ... - RedditMore results from www.reddit.com
  21. [21]
    Castling in Chess by Edward Winter
    C.N. 795 mentioned the castling incident which occurred in Averbakh v Purdy, Adelaide, 1960, as reported on page 110 of Wonders and Curiosities of Chess by ...
  22. [22]
    Chess 101: What Is Castling? Learn About the 2 Conditions That ...
    Sep 2, 2022 · A good rule general rule to remember for castling is that the king will always end on the same color square that it started from. (Put another ...
  23. [23]
    https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24245/how-often-does-castling-occur-in-grandmaster-games
  24. [24]
    How often does castling occur in grandmaster games?
    Apr 18, 2019 · Kingside castling is done by 80-81% of the players, and queen side castling by 8-9%. I estimate that Never castled by the end of the game but ...Has anyone done a correlation of castling with winning and losing?Chess Statistics How to?More results from chess.stackexchange.com
  25. [25]
    Hypermodern Chess – Strategy, Tactics & Openings | ChessWorld.net
    41. Nimzowitsch often delayed castling to maximize flexibility. He valued flexible responses over rigid early commitments. 42.
  26. [26]
    Attacking The Castled King - Same Side Castling Edition - Chess.com
    Mar 5, 2022 · This is due to the fact that castling enables you to get your King away from the center of the board, and helps link up your Rooks. This is part ...Missing: offensive | Show results with:offensive
  27. [27]
    Queen side castle Guide: Rules, Strategy and Traps - North Texas ...
    Queenside castling is the special chess move where the king moves two squares toward the rook on the a–file and that rook jumps to the square immediately next ...
  28. [28]
    Discovered Attack - Chess Terms
    A discovered attack happens when a player moves one piece out of the way to reveal a previously blocked attack by another piece.
  29. [29]
    A check given by castling: is it a discovered check or a special case?
    Jul 5, 2024 · 2) a discovered check. It arises when recently moved piece does NOT give check by itself but opens exactly one line of attack. A rider-type ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Assessing Game Balance with AlphaZero - arXiv
    Sep 15, 2020 · Here we examine several hypothetical alterations to the rules of chess through the lens of AlphaZero, highlighting variants of the game that.
  31. [31]
    [PDF] Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General ... - arXiv
    Dec 5, 2017 · In this paper, we generalise this approach into a single AlphaZero algorithm that can achieve, tabula rasa, superhuman performance in many ...
  32. [32]
    Karpov vs. Korchnoi | World Chess Championship 1978
    Nov 2, 2018 · Karpov broke out to a 4-1 lead and then was up 5-2 when Korchnoi rallied, winning three out of four in games 28-31 to level the score at 5-5.
  33. [33]
    Karpov-Korchnoi: 40 years after - ChessBase
    Oct 17, 2018 · For the 32nd game, played on October 17, 1978, Korchnoi had Black and prepared an opening surprise: 6...c5 in the Pirc Defence. Karpov, however, ...
  34. [34]
    Korchnoi vs Karpov (1978) World Championship 29th
    ### Summary
  35. [35]
    Karpov - Korchnoi (1978) - ChessGames.com
    No information is available for this page. · Learn why
  36. [36]
    Heidenfeld, Wolfgang - Kerins, Noel, Armstrong Cup 1973 - IRLchess
    55 (Mike Fox and Richard James); and Robert Timmer, Startling Castling! (London, 1997) pp. 41-42 (citing Fox and James)); Seán Coffey, Heidenfeld-Kerins, Dublin ...
  37. [37]
    Wolfgang Heidenfeld vs Noel Kerins (1973) Five Rings
    ### Move List
  38. [38]
    Chess records - De website van Tim Krabbé
    A survey of chess records.<|control11|><|separator|>
  39. [39]
    Averbakh vs Purdy (1960) AUS-ch
    ### PGN and Move-by-Move Score
  40. [40]
    Do Grandmasters Know The Rules Of Chess?
    Jan 11, 2015 · Purdy proved that the castling was legal since this applies only to the king, to which Averbakh replied: "Only the king? Not the rook?" Here is ...Missing: incident | Show results with:incident
  41. [41]
    An ugly duckling problem | The Spectator
    Jul 18, 2020 · (In chess problems, by convention, castling ... Averbakh, presumably discombobulated, found a sensible response and eventually won the game.
  42. [42]
    Edward Lasker vs George Thomas (1912) Fatal Attraction
    Nov-14-16 lealcala: Lasker chose to move the King to checkmate. Always felt it would have been even a more special game if he had chosen rooking to checkmate.
  43. [43]
    Lodewijk Prins vs Lawrence Day (1968) A Hard Day's Knight
    ### Extracted Game Details
  44. [44]
    Endgame Explorations 11 (ACJ Extra) - Castling
    ... Feuer-O'Kelly theme: (diagram) The solution is simple, especially given the theme: 1 d7 Kc7 2 d8/Q+! Kxd8 3 0-0-0+. And White wins. But note the tries 1 Rd1 ...
  45. [45]
    [PDF] 100 Tactical Patterns You Must Know JMvdM.indb - New In Chess
    Otto Feuer. Alberic O'Kelly de Galway. Liege Belgian Championship 1934 ._LdMl ... castling possible, check! Target on the d-file? Let's arrange that: 10 ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Chess Tactics and Combinations - Exeter Chess Club
    A remarkable trap to catch Black's. Rook; a fork or a jump? Feuer - O'Kelly [C73]. Liege, 1934. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.Bxc6+ bxc6 6.d4 f6 7.Nc3 ...
  47. [47]
    Fischer vs Najdorf, 1962 - Chessgames.com
    JavaScript is disabled. In order to continue, we need to verify that you're not a robot. This requires JavaScript. Enable JavaScript and then reload the page.
  48. [48]
    Olympics, 1962 - Chess.com
    Aug 17, 2008 · Black's expectation in this Najdorf Variation is that his control of important central squares, with possibilities of Q-side expansion, will ...
  49. [49]
    Fischer - Najdorf, 1962 Varna - Chess for All Ages
    Nov 29, 2010 · Here is the PGN, showing the annotation symbols of the two former World Champions. The game is no.40 in Fischer's 60 Memorable Games and no.69 ...Missing: analysis | Show results with:analysis
  50. [50]
    My Sixty Memorable Games (Fischer) - ChessGames.com
    Game 40. Fischer vs Najdorf, 1962 (B90) Sicilian, Najdorf, 24 moves, 1-0. Game 41. Fischer vs Robatsch, 1962 (B01) Scandinavian, 20 moves, 1-0. Game 42
  51. [51]
    Artificial Castling in Chess - Castling by Hand (How To & Examples)
    Sep 24, 2023 · Also known as “castling by hand,” artificial castling allows a player to achieve a castled position without the standard castling procedure.
  52. [52]
    Artificial castling - Rules and strategy of chess games
    A unique and even humorous artificial castling took place in the game Heidenfeld-Hecht, played in the Nice Chess Olympiad 1974: 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e5 Ne4 4.d4 ...
  53. [53]
    https://www.gnu.org/software/xboard/whats_new/rules/Cylinder.html
  54. [54]
    How To Castle In Fischer Random Chess (Chess960)
    Oct 4, 2019 · Standard Castling Rules · 1. The king and castling rook cannot have moved before castling. · 2. The king cannot castle out of check/checkmate. · 3.
  55. [55]
    Cylinder Chess - GNU
    Castling. A King that has not moved before can move two squares in the direction of a Rook that has not moved before, in which case that Rook ...
  56. [56]
    Shatranj (ancient Arabic/Persian Chess) - GNU.org
    The Ferz and Alfil replace the Queen and Bishop. The Pawn have no double move. No castling. The King starts on the e-file. Strategy issues. Because of the ...
  57. [57]
    Xiangqi (Chinese Chess) Basics 02 How to Play Xiangqi - xqinenglish
    A stalemate would be a loss for the King placed under it. · There is no such thing as castling; · There is no such thing as promotion of the Pawns · There is no ...
  58. [58]
    Castling and En-passant capture in the Codex 2009 (by Werner Keym)
    (3) Partial Retrograde Analysis (PRA) convention. Where the rights to castle and/or to capture en-passant are mutually dependent, the solution consists of ...
  59. [59]
    Chess problem conventions re castling and capturing en passant
    Oct 23, 2021 · If the d5-pawn has just moved from d7, though, then White could have made the discovered check, Rc6-h6+. Therefore …d7-d5 is a potential ...
  60. [60]
    What is the fastest possible stalemate by castling?
    May 22, 2020 · But what but is the fastest possible stalemate in which castling must be the last move? 33 plies is my best result so far. NN - NN ...
  61. [61]
    Tim Krabbé's Chess Curiosities
    A site about the beauty of chess - with games, problems, endgame studies and more.
  62. [62]
    [2510.23881] Generating Creative Chess Puzzles - arXiv
    Oct 27, 2025 · This paper presents an approach to tackle these difficulties in the domain of chess puzzles. We start by benchmarking Generative AI ...Missing: castling 2020
  63. [63]
    Chess Pieces And Terms In Other Languages
    Nov 9, 2023 · Castling, التبييت, Roque, Rochade, Rokade, Arrocco. Tactic, التكتيك في ... Рокировка, Enroque, Rok atmak. Tactic, 전술, Taktyka, Táticas, Тактика ...
  64. [64]
    The language of chess to speak with players from all over the world ...
    Jun 21, 2025 · White chessmen: Piezas blancas. Black chessmen: Piezas negras. Castling: enrocarse. Kingside castling: enroque corto. Queenside castling: ...
  65. [65]
    Why is a Rook Called a Rook - Official Staunton
    Dec 9, 2020 · The Germans call this chess piece Turm, which means tower. White and Black rooks start out at the corners of the chessboard. This starting ...
  66. [66]
    How to play Chess in Chinese - Mandarin Morning
    Castling: 王车易位 (wáng jū yì wèi) Check: 将军 (jiāng jūn) Checkmate: 将死 (jiāng sǐ) Some final words to complete your Chess vocabulary in Chinese are:
  67. [67]
    Chess in Chinese ♟️ A Practical Guide - LTL Singapore
    Aug 13, 2022 · Castling, 王车易位, wáng jū yì wèi. Check, 将军, jiāng jūn. Checkmate, 将死, jiāng sǐ. Some final words to complete your Chess vocabulary in ...
  68. [68]
    Xhosa chess terminology launched - YouTube
    Jul 12, 2015 · The launch of an IsiXhosa chess terminology book earlier this week by South Africa's international chess master, Watu Kobese, is a first for ...Missing: Swahili castling<|separator|>
  69. [69]
    FIDE Handbook
    FIDE Handbook: FIDE CHARTER, A. ADMINISTRATIVE SUBJECTS, B. PERMANENT COMMISSIONS, C. GENERAL RULES AND TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TOURNAMENTS.02. FIDE Compliant Electronic... · FIDE Laws of Chess · FIDE Title Regulations...Missing: post- | Show results with:post-