i thought you can't castle with your castling rook under attack?

im not really good at the game, but i have always thought that you cant castle when the squares between your rook and king including their respective squares are under attack, im assuming im wrong because i forked a queen and a rook in elegant fashion and he castled with the named rook.

(1) You should provide the link to the game you're talking about in the future - this time I found it for you: https://www.chess.com/live/game/1955523229?username=kossmelee

(2) You should learn the rules of the game - the king may castle if and only if each of the conditions are met:

*The king has not moved.

*When the king castles, he is not moving through or onto any squares attacked by the enemy

*The king is not in check when he wishes to castle

*The rook that is used for castling has not moved

(3) If you don't know what "en passant" is, you should look that up as well. Good luck.

well, that was just something i thought i knew, you know. i was just shocked that something that i understood as a rule be broken and i kind of posted a useless forum about it lol... im trying my best to take the game seriously but its really hard for me to maintain focus and i end up doing stupid things in my mental exhaustion haha, and i know about en passant, what you saw was just a blunder XD

As a scholastic chess USCF Tournament Director, I had to address this question often. USCF Chess Rule 8C1.a. specifically says: "A player may castle with a rook whose original square is under attack."

It's ok if you're a beginner and still learning some fundamentals.

And posting a "useless" forum is a relatively good thing - half the forum posts here are complete garbage and trolling attempts. 

haha good to know that im not alone.  One rule down, literally countless things left to learn!

that's sad, you would hope that when you log onto a chess site you would be met by intelligent people, but hey, who am i to talk. maybe one day ill understand the game enough to feel like i belong here

if you like the game, you are in the right place. Nobody was born taught.

The relevant Law has been given above but I recall that when I learned about castling to think of it as a King move, rather than a Rook move. The King cannot castle from, through or into check.

You are in good company GM Viktor Korchnoi asked the same question in his candidate match against Anatoly Karpov.  

And if I recall right, Korchnoi actually did castle illegally in a game, and neither he nor his opponent did anything about it.

An easy way to remember the correct rule is that it is based on the idea that you aren't allowed to put your own king into check.  You're allowed to put your rook en prise, so there is no rule limiting castling if the rook is ever in danger.

But, as Dodger111 mentioned, even a Super-GM has had to have this clarified, so it is a common misconception.

Dont forget the condition that there can not be any pieces on the squares between the king and rook!

You're right! But I don't think the OP, or any player would have that issue when it comes to the legality of castling. 

haha, probably not...but might as well cover all bases

i wonder if anyone has tried though...to castle long with a knight on its original square....

I can understand the OP's confusion. I have actually seen some sites, that cover the rules of chess, that say you can not castle, if the Rook is under attack.

Post 17! Thank you. Ironically I ran into this yesterday and wasn't sure. I was going to ask. So I can not move my king to say e4 because my opponents knight is attacking it, but what if i have my opponents knight pinned? I still can't move my king to e4?