Castling allowed when Rook under attack
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Yes, there is a problem here. You don't know the rules of chess.
...Or maybe a player isn't completely familiar with all the rules of castling to either side of the board. In this diagram, the Black pieces show the two possible arrangements after castling to one side or the other (no, it's not meant to suggest that it's OK to have two kings!), whereas the white pieces are used to show how the pieces move to castle:
Did you know that, although the King is barred from moving out of or through check during castling, it's totally acceptable for the Rook to do so?
Click here for a 5-minute video that tells you everything you need to know about castling rules!
Thanks for your video
No problem. Not everyone is taught the rules of chess correctly so it's usually not their fault. About once a month someone posts about "en passant"; again not their fault if they don't know the rule. It just means they weren't taught properly.
You should also note that if b1 and only b1 is under attack with white king on e1 and rook on a1, castling is still legal if neither the king nor the rook has moved.
baddogno wrote:
... it's usually not their fault.... not their fault if they don't know the rule
I know you are an old guy, so maybe you have never heard of this thing called 'the internet'. It has all the rules of chess. Easily searchable by any one. 
[COMMENT DELETED]
A king cannot castle to get out of check, through check, or end up being in check after castling.
Rooks, which can never be in check, can move through through checking lines.
Hope this helps! ;)
thank you all for your help Please be relevant, helpful & nice!
ravipvns wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED]
+1
kleelof wrote:
baddogno wrote:
... it's usually not their fault.... not their fault if they don't know the rule
I know you are an old guy, so maybe you have never heard of this thing called 'the internet'. It has all the rules of chess. Easily searchable by any one.
True, but if you already think you know the rules, why would you bother to look them up?
LOOOL, this thread, this thread!!!
baddogno wrote:
kleelof wrote:
baddogno wrote:
... it's usually not their fault.... not their fault if they don't know the rule
I know you are an old guy, so maybe you have never heard of this thing called 'the internet'. It has all the rules of chess. Easily searchable by any one.
True, but if you already think you know the rules, why would you bother to look them up?
Ah, yes. You are as wise as you are old.
Viktor Korchnoi, in his 1974 Candidates final match with Anatoly Karpov, famously asked the arbiter if castling was legal when the castling rook was under attack.[7] The answer was in the affirmative, and Korchnoi ended up winning the game.
Blobby wobby, in his/her 65535 Candidates final match with Gloop, Schloopv, famously asked the blobber if pooping was legal when the castling rook was under attack. The answer was in the affirmative, and Blobby Wobby ended up pooping on the game.
Chesscoaching wrote:
You should also note that if b1 and only b1 is under attack with white king on e1 and rook on a1, castling is still legal if neither the king nor the rook has moved.
Actually, I think it is OK to castle if a1 OR b1 are under attack because queenside castle and King doen't move through check in either circumstance. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Also, same would apply on opposite side of board, obviously.
Interesting about Korchnoi!
Almost as good as sadie's story.
