It was not legal... Because he has to move king to g8 first and then, and only then move rook to f8 
Otherwise it was legal. It doesn't matter if rook is under attack, main thing is that e8,f8,g8(fields through which king moves) are not in check. But tell your friend to always move king first.
FUN w/Rules: Castling
Sort:
The instances when you can't castle :
- Your king or rook have moved at any time from the start of the game before the point you want to castle
- Your king is under check , you have to either move the king or block the check . If you block the check you can castle in the future, unless any other condition isn't broken in the meantime
- Your king's line of travel can't pass an attacked squares . In your position , king doesn't pass through an attackd square , so it is a valid castle.
- When castling you have to move the king first , then complete the castle by moving the rook . If you move the rook first, then your opponent has the right to acknowledge this and you have to play that single rook move .
Gnawvous wrote:
Here 13.Nxf7, my opponent was faced with an untouchable knight on f7 that was attacking both his queen and rook...
Will my good friend ever be allowed the opportunity announce this Mate in 8, or is he disqualified instead?
"My opponent" and "my good friend"... Next time you want to hide yourself under "my friend" mask do it more accurately
it was a legal castle.the king was not being checked and the king never had move through an attacked square.and it does not matter if the rook is being attacked just so long as the king is not attacked and the king does not have to move through an attacked square to castle.
That is a legal move since 1)The King and Rook have not moved, 2) The King is not in check, 3) The King does not pass any attacked squares and 4) The King does not castle into check. That move was a legal move unless you ageed to use the touch-move rule and he touched his rook first.
Two votes for, and two against. It's as yet undecided.
Here is the Mate in 8 should castles be legal:
Does it alter the outcome if Castles is rescinded, and black is left with a rook on f8?
Apr 11, 2008
0
#9
This after the en passant nonsense. I see, now. You just like to ask esoteric, silly, pointless questions with unlikely yarns woven throughout. The real question isn't whether the castling move was legal (which it was, save for the order in which it was conducted - trivial imho), but why anyone would castle at that point. King takes knight at C2 and walks away with a significant material advantage (up by a bishop and two pawns).
willexi wrote: but why anyone would castle at that point. King takes knight at C2 and walks away with a significant material advantage (up by a bishop and two pawns).
If 13...Kxf7 (not c2) then 14.Qxd5+, goodbye knight, and your bishop is next.
ive heard of something like this...
if u get a pawn in the e file promoted to a rook,and your king is in the starting position,then you can castle vertically.
tried it but didnt happen in inserting a diagram.
anyone know bout that?
It's legal. This style of 'castling when the rook is under attack' becomes far more obvious when you are dealing with a queen-side castle.
As a general rule, if chess.com's chessboard can make the move using PGN format, then it's a real move.
Kingskiller wrote:
Gnawvous wrote:
Gnawvous wrote:
Here 13.Nxf7, my opponent was faced with an untouchable knight on f7 that was attacking both his queen and rook...
Will my good friend ever be allowed the opportunity announce this Mate in 8, or is he disqualified instead?
"My opponent" and "my good friend"... Next time you want to hide yourself under "my friend" mask do it more accurately
Peace, this is Funny as "hey, L! ! !" Haa!Haa!
I am on a goods friends account and hes Very Good and doesnt lose often. He need some lessons can somebody teach me? [smile] how to open games firmly with a meaning.
Kingskiller wrote:
Gnawvous wrote:
Gnawvous wrote:
Here 13.Nxf7, my opponent was faced with an untouchable knight on f7 that was attacking both his queen and rook...
Will my good friend ever be allowed the opportunity announce this Mate in 8, or is he disqualified instead?
"My opponent" and "my good friend"... Next time you want to hide yourself under "my friend" mask do it more accurately
This lesson was adapted from Petrov's Immortal game, which is presented here:
http://www.chess.com/article/view/alexander-petrov-stone-cold-castle
As I related in an earlier thread, my friend had found himself in quite a commotion over the interpretation of the rule called "Castling". Since I'm new to chess, I do not know all of the rules to castles, and am quite surprised when I manage to make a legal one in a game. So if you're confused about any of the rules like I am, then you'll have to look them up yourself to determine whether any apply to this situation.
On to the game. My crafty friend was playing with the black pieces, and was suffering a great deal. He had gone out the night before with friends, and had a bit too much sarsparilla which made him dizzy. He subsequently fell down the stairs on his return trip spraining his right hand. Please play through the moves to arrive at the position in question...
Here 13.Nxf7, my opponent was faced with an untouchable knight on f7 that was attacking both his queen and rook. Any gentleman in his right mind would offer immediate resignation, but my good friend decided to stay and fight on! Reaching up with his good left hand, he moved the rook to f8, then the king to g8 completing his castling. But was this move legal? Isn't the rook under attack? Certainly, said his opponent, my good friend should be disqualified for unsportsmanlike castling.
What was revealed by the questionable castles is a Mate threat if white takes the queen Nxd8. Did you find it? Will my good friend ever be allowed the opportunity announce this Mate in 8, or is he disqualified instead? Please help, the clock is running!