Why can't you castle when in check?

True.  Even some Grandmasters have been flummoxed by the rule, especially with the rook in 0-0-0

The purpose of the rules, as a whole, is to create a game rich in both strategy (long term) and tactics (short term).

Chess is unique in that balance. For example shogi is much more tactical than it is strategic, and go is much more strategic.

Not being able to castle while in check tips the scales towards the tactical. Is it that important? Probably not. Compare it to something like stalemate is a draw (which is a large contributor to the strategic side).

Apparently, you cannot move into Check

...Even if you do not Land on it!

Another point; is this where the term "Cross Check" is derived from?

I am all for it actually! It would create a trickier situation since now you can castle out of check, given that the squares between king and rook aren't being attacked.

Later in the game this gets tricker, as some checks would be outcastleable and others won't.
Maybe it's too complicated but I think that's the point. +1 on the tactics list.

It makes sense because the rook can be under attack and you can still castle. But with the king you can't. I think originally it was meant to give the attacker more of an edge, since they liked checkmating sequences rather than positional play back in the day.

You have my vote.

It sucks because I lost a game when I had a castle that would have gotten me out if it were aloud

"Why can't you castle when in check?"

Because it's against the rules. I don't think there's anything flummoxing about that, even for Grandmasters.

Besides, castling is the equivalent of going home or back to your castle. Being in check is the equivalent of being attacked. No chivalrous king would go home or back to his castle when he was being attacked. His duty is to lead the troops. Simple as that.

Oh I thought I answered that bit. I can't imagine GMs being "flummoxed" by it because they actually have to get to be a GM.

Being in check is the equivalent of being attacked. No chivalrous king would go home or back to his castle when he was being attacked. His duty is to lead the troops.

The king can't castle out of check because they have him at sword point. They'll cut him down if he tries to run. Why should he run anyway? They're not going to kill him if he comes along peacefully. It's the code of kings.

hi!

First thanks for the info about the original reason, quite interesting. 

About FIDE, is that just your opinion, or is Fide actually considering a change? (Please do answer this)

(practical/Interesting) My opinion. En passant,  en passant and the same castling rights in 3 fold repetition, are all special and have special rules. Castling falls into a similar category and as such deserves (in my opinion) a special rule also, which to me is practical on it's own. What you wrote about moving the rook first, and now just carried over makes it appear to be no longer practical, because the rule change had (?) nothing to do with being practical. However castling is still a special move, and changing the rule diminishes that, again in my  opinion. On it's own I am unable to convey why this is so, because others will likely say if the rule was changed then it would be the exact same move, and equally special. So to grasp what I am trying to convey, may found in the subject of interesting. As the rule stands now I must make a decision, attack, develope, or castle. Changing the rule means I still must make a decision, but castling is diminished somewhat. I will do this, and so what if my opponent attacks my King or the space between, I can still castle. It takes way from the game. I find it far more interesting having to make a decision, rather than in essence, having one of them removed./diminished.  So yes, it is both practical and more interesting, with the current rules as is. Of course everyone has a right to their opinion, I just stated mine, and I am unlikely to argue it.

No no, your French understanding of our magnificent nation is at odds with all logic and intellectual merit!

In reality many of our kings were very friendly with French ladies. That's what they were doing all the time.

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Sir.... whilst i love the French, and holiday there often, you are in no position to lecture the English or Brits on defence or attack.

A large part of of your country was once under English rule, and twice in the last century we came to your aid to defeat a foreign invader.

I know it is very popular these days to complain about us, but if some eastern country were to attack you again you would look to us to support you.

And we will.

I was trying to make a joke, you know ..... I also have had one or two nice French girlfriends.

If the King is in check, it means that a piece is seeing the king. Check means to detect the presence of something. Then the King cannot hide in the castle because it is already seen. That is why castling during this time cannot be done.

Not every week for sure, and many chip shops don't know how to make them. Everything overcooked and soggy.

However, fish and chips made well are delicious and go very nicely with Champagne, especially the more bright-tasting ones, like Lanson or Monopole.