Castling

So this is the first time i have seen this. I understand that the king didnt cross check. The real question is, are there famous games where this type of postion occurs, and why isnt the rule you cant castle when either the rook or king has to cross a threat. Has this rule ever been held in contention, and over all just how often does this kind of thing happen, and are there lines that use this loophole to there advantage?

You were still winning. Why did you resign?

According to wikipedia, even famous grandmasters have been confused by the rules on castling:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1995-07-16/entertainment/9507110283_1_rook-anatoly-karpov-castle

You can view the game Evans references on Chessgames: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067831

yeah i understand the rules of chess and castling and the example you gave isnt anywhere near what i have shown im talking about queenside csatling

@OP: When castling, the King cannot castle through check. The squares between the King and the castling Rook must all be vacant.

Some people conflate these two parameters. They think that if any square between the two pieces is under any enemy influence, then they cannot castle. This is simply not true. Historically, some grandmasters have been confused about this on rare occasion.

The control of the a1, b1, a8, and b8 squares has no impact on the validity of castling.

ok so apparently i was not clear in my original post. i understand how castling works.

what i am really trying to ask is why do we castle the way we do queenside. who made the rule this way? why dont we castle the king to b. i understand that we castle the king two squares either way. but that does create an odd position as shown in my game at the top of this thread. now lets just say we did castle king side as normal but then to castle queen side you put the king on b and rook on c wouldnt that change the meta of chess alot and also make going queenside a more viable option? or would this just simplify the game to much. amd i making myself clear at this point?

According to Wikipedia castling was introduced in the 14th or 15th centuries and the present rules established in the 17th century.

I would say most people just accept them as they are.

I can't really see how that is an odd position.  The king never moved through check or into check so it is no more odd that if you catle kingside with your h-pawn missing and a Queen  on h5 or with your g-pawn missing and a bishop firing down the diagonal attacking your rook.  It may be suicidal, but I don't see what is strange about it.

I rarely castle queenside, but I doubt I would be more likely to do so if the king landed straight on b1/b8, it's just 1 temp.  But equally whenever I do I want my Rook to finish on d1/d8 so that would be another lost temp anyway to move it from the c-file.

I learned castling originally as moving the Rook upto the side of the king then hopping the king over it, although after that I also learned that you should move your king first when you castle (over the board) which renders that understanding less useful!

With the current rules for castling, let's say you are black, when you castle either kingside or queenside your king ends up in a white square. This way, your opponent's lightsquare bishop is the bishop able to check the king with only one move. Changing it will certainly change things.