castling doubt

can i castle if the rook has to pass through a square within range of an enemy piece?

Yes. You can even castle if the rook is attacked. Only the king is special.

no it can't because rules about castling are as follows

1. the king can't castle if the king or rook has moved
2. the king can't castle out of check
3. castling can't happen if it you put your opponent in check
4. you can't castle past check
5. so in this case you will put your king in check by castling and you will also move past check which means

in this game you will not be able to castle until blacks rook is not their

hope this helps?

@littlehotpot: you're making no sense. How does the white king move past check and into check in this position? Only b1 is attacked, and the white king doesn't pass it nor end up on it.

Lol, littlehotpot, you are so wrong.

All rules are correct. But when you castle, you move your king 2 squares towards rook, and move your rook behind king. In this position, King will be on c1 and rook on d1, so - yes, he can castle.

 sorry you are correct. the rules are correct but i didn't look at it properly i thought the king the was going to castle king side but  it is queen side now that i looked at it properly then i realised that i was wrong so to clear things up

polarismajor ;

  the rules that i said are correct but you can now castle queen side

yes he can of course

thank you all for clearing this doubt, because in a tournament the organiser was not willing to accept that this was a legal move

 He cant castle kingside with the N on g1 so how is that passing through check or landing in check ? Your excuse is flimsy to the extreme. If the N isnt there he could legally castle to either side in the given position.

Don't be so hard on him, apparently he thought the knight on g1 was a couple of black knights on g3 and h3. It happens.

 In this case, why mention the black rook(s) ? 

Since when? Unless there has been a recent rule change of which I am unaware, if your rook lands on a square which checks the opponent's king, it's a legal move, providing none of the other prohibitions was violated.

 That is true, but I did not understand very good "if it you put "!?

 Exactly.

That is true, but I did not understand very good "if it you put "!?

I think he edited his post and left an extra word in by mistake. He probably meant to write: "3. Castling can't happen if    you put your opponent in check."

Or: "3. Castling can't happen if by doing it you put your opponent in check."

Yeah, I think he simply meant 3. If you put your opponent in check, he can't castle.

Possibly, but since number 2 was "the king can't castle out of check" that would be redundant. I read it as "castling can't happen if it     puts your opponent in check," which is clearly incorrect.

after reading the comments on about number three i have checked the rules upon castling and you are correct about that point in which you have stated. i simply made a mistake on the rules on castling but i am still learning many things about chess that i didn't know before. and also i  did not edit my first comment on this page i simply forgot to check it  but any other posts that you see from me now should make sense so that i do not end up getting things wrong. so i am sorry about number three on my first comment and i will try and improve on the things that i type from now on 

We all make those kinds of mistakes. When I end up with an extra word, it's usually when I write something and change the wording of it (edit, though not in the sense of post first then edit), and either don't proofread it, or else I somehow I manage to read what I meant, not what it says.

Remember, even the venerable Victor Korchnoi got confused regarding the rules of castling. I guess we mortals can as well.