I just played a game where both me and my oppenent castled after being check?  whats up with that?

If I'm not mistaken, you can castle AFTER being in check so long as you 1. Are not currently in check and 2. The King doesn't cross any squares where he would be in check.

Or if you've moved you king or the rook you'd like to castle with.

Someone I played with a while ago was convinced that because they had checked my king once with a bishop, I should not be allowed to castle later on in the game. I was quite taken aback as I'd never heard of this rule, but the fellow was quite insistent. Is this an old rule thats since been dropped or is it just a misunderstanding of the real castling rules?

Its a misunderstanding of the rules. You can castle after you have been in check as long as you are not currently in check and when checked before you didnt move the king nor the rook that you wish to castle with.

I dont get that. I thought u cant castle while in check... at least that's what my chess program told me.

Misunderstanding of the rules. I remember being told the same thing years ago. Some people seem to be convinced of it.

Player123 wrote: I dont get that. I thought u cant castle while in check... at least that's what my chess program told me.

---

 Did you read Reb's post? As he said, you can castle if you've been in check earlier in the game, but not if you're CURRENTLY in check.

 

This just came up in another thread recently, and someone found a detailed and accurate list of castling rules on Wikipedia and posted them. Here they are again:

 

Castling is permissible only if all of the following conditions hold:

1. The king must never have moved;
2. The chosen rook must never have moved;
3. There must be no pieces between the king and the chosen rook;
4. The king must not currently be in check.
5. The king must not pass through squares that are under attack by enemy pieces.
6. The king must not end up in check (true of any legal move).
7. The king and the chosen rook must be on the same rank.^[1]

It is a common mistake to think that the requirements for castling are even more stringent than the above. To clarify:

1. The king may have been in check previously, as long as it isn't in check at the time of castling.
2. The rook involved in castling may be under attack.
3. The rook involved in castling may move over an attacked square (a situation possible only with queenside castling).

 

Note number 4 on the first list and number 1 on the second list. The one I don't get is #7. How could a king and rook who haven't moved be anywhere other than the first rank?

 

--Fromper 

Fromper, 

 

I saw a puzzle elsewhere on this site where the solution was to promote the e-pawn to a rook, and then castle along the e-file. Those who took part in the thread decided that the rook had moved previously, as a pawn, and so the puzzle was simply flawed. FIDE however, decided to add rule #7 to clear up any remaining ambiguities.

Its fascinating because I think I remember watching an analysis of a game where the king was checked and the analysis said that the side that did the check now had the advantage because the other side could not castle.  I thought the analyzer had meant they could not castle for the rest of the match.  However, if Reb says its alright than it obviously is.  And to think that I have played however many games thinking that after once being in check you couldnt castle.  I think I even played on site once where that was the rule.  Thank you Reb for weighing in.

simba4 wrote:

I just played a game where both me and my oppenent castled after being check?  whats up with that?

---

 

Reb, as always has it right.