Playing with converting a book from descriptive to algebraic, wanted to see how it looked...

Taken from "The Art of Attack in Chess", pg. 48, written by V. Vukovic, conversion of descriptive to algebraic notation by _Griphin_. The version I own is the Pergammon International Library edition, translated by A.F. Bottrall, the English Translation was edited by P.H. Clarke. I highly recommend getting this book. Maybe one day I'll convert the entire book to algebraic notation from descriptive.

Artificial CastlingChess also contains the term 'artificial castling,' which means that a player creates a position the same as or similar to that reached after genuine castling. It is attained not by a single castling move but a series of moves by the King and the Rook. In the continuation from the following diagram we shall encounter the simplest example of 'artificial castling.'

Black to move, played:
1... Nxe4
White's best would now be 2. Nxe4 d5 3. Bd3 dxe4 4. Bxe4, in which case the prospects would remain even. But before taking the Knight on e4, he decides to use his Bishop to prevent his opponent from castling - a calculation which, in this position, is faulty.

2. Bxf7+ Kxf7 3. Nxe4
At first sight White's plan appears to have succeeded, since, as well as maintaining the material balance, he has prevented Black from castling. But the further play shows that Black can carry out an 'artificial castling' without difficulty and has made a clear gain in that he is left with strong pawns in the centre.

3... d5 4. Ng3 Rf8 5. d3 Kg8
Now the superiority of Black's position is quite obvious, and one can easily appreciate the part played by the 'artifical castling'; Black has admittedly expended three moves on it, but White has derived no advantage from this fact, since he has made three moves of even less value, i.e. Bf7+, Nxe4, and Ng3. In a sense, Black was castling while White was transferring his Knight from c3 to g3.