More then one castling?

http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/records/records.htm

There is a record for "greatest number of castlings" and it says that the game had three. White apparantly had two, is this possible? The game they have on record does not go up to the move where white did he second castling.

That would be impossible!

ADK

So why is there a record for it?...

I think I recall reading somewhere about that game... I think the opponent didn't notice the extra castling taking place, so it was allowed to stand.

And people say there is no luck in chess!

Looking at the game it seems as if white's king moved back to it's original square after castling the first time and then castled again.. I was pretty sure that was against the rules though....

I don't think those are legal moves.

From FIDE (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=124&view=article)

1) The right for castling has been lost:
a.if the king has already moved, or
b.with a rook that has already moved

(2) Castling is prevented temporarily
a.if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent`s pieces.
b.if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected.

underflow, from the page you cite, there is one important regulation:

In other words, if you make an illegal move, and your opponent doesn't notice and makes his next move, your move stands.

How right you were! Indeed, as Underflow pointed out, the right for castling is lost if the king has already moved, which makes castling a second time impossible (or more precisely, against the rules), since castling is a king move.

But yes, if your opponent doesn't point out that you made a move that isn't legal, then castling a second time may be possible.

If you're keeping a record of the game, though, wouldn't you go to write down the move and see 0-0 or 0-0-0 staring at you?

Ah thanks for clearing that up guys.

Maybe Chess.com should have something like that? You can make illegal moves if your opponent doesn't point them out.

I'm not sure if that actually happened or not but I am pretty sure that if the move isn't noticed that it would stand.

And about letting that happen here.........we are all playing online chess and many of us are doing more than just that while we sign in to make a move or two. I really don't think anyone wants the extra hassle of having to check whether or not their opponent cheated or not just to see if they could get an easy break..........

Hmmm...I wonder if the software the pros use for their blindfold tourneys--they use blank boards on their screens, and I think they move square to square--allows for double castling? Since it is permissible otb it ought to make an illegal move stand until challenged, right?

impossible!!!

the rule is that if it's noticed during the game the position prior to the illegal move is set up using the scoresheets. If it's not noticed until after the game the result stands

From FIDE rules:

If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the

requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been

completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the

position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall

continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity.

8.7

At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the

result of the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides

otherwise

Great idea! We've already got it in the analcyst board, why not have an "enforce legal moves" option at the start of games aswell! Hilarity may well ensue...

Also after looking at the game not only would white castle a second time but he would have to castle through check as well.

Castles through check? The king doesn't, is it also illegal for the rook to move through check when castling?

No, if the rook moves through check but the king does not, that does not count as castling through check.

Here is the game. I didn't belive it really could happen :S

Heidenfeld - Kerins, Dublin 1973

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 10.O-O f5 11.Ng5 Be7 12.g4 Bxg5 13.fxg5 Nf8 14.gxf5 exf5 15.Bf3 Be6 16.Qg2 O-O-O 17.Na3 Ng6 18.Qd2 f4 19.Bf2 Bh3 20.Rfb1 Bf5 21.Nc2 h6 22.gxh6 Rxh6 23.Nb4 Qe6 24.Qe2 Ne7 25.b3 Qg6+ 26.Kf1 Bxb1 27.bxc4 dxc4 28.Qb2 Bd3+ 29.Ke1 Be4 30.Qe2 Bxf3 31.Qxf3 Rxh2 32.d5 Qf5 33.O-O-O Rh3 34.Qe2 Rxc3+ 35.Kb2 Rh3 36.d6 Nec6 37.Nxc6 Nxc6 38.e6 Qe5+ 39.Qxe5 Nxe5 40.d7+ Nxd7 0-1

So the third castle is legal (except for the obvious fact that it's the third one!)?