Yeah this is stuff I also didn't know as a beginner. The casteling rule states: King can't pass through check. Nothing is said about the rook here but it easy to assume that. I atleast did before.
En passant only applies to pawn vs pawn because pawns are less valuable then other pieces and therefor the pawn jumping move passed another pawn is the important one to prevent with the en passant rule. This is also something not easy to understand for someone very new to chess.
I never really thought about it but your right. Maybe they should make an option rule for this as well, just like in en passant.
You know, this reminds me of something that happened to me, though it really isn't that important to the topic. When I played in my first tournament, I allowed the Fried Liver and didn't stop it (Nxf7 fork trick). As a matter of fact, I was perhaps 700 OTB strength at the time and did not notice my Queen was hanging, only my Rook! I cheerfully proceeded to castle (!) and allowed my opponent to take my Queen with discovered check. I went on to win in under 25 total moves (I have no idea how). Later, I was analyzing the game (my school system pays a few instructors that go up to master strength), and the question arose whether you could castle when your Rook was under attack! I was fairly certain it was a legal move, and as you say here I was correct. I guess a 700 player that's about seven years old may actually have something to offer sometimes.
If you think about it though it is logical. The King is the only piece that matters. I pretend that the pieces are shooting a death ray along their line of attack. It is only bad if the King passes through it, because the King is you, and you cannot take a hit even in passing.
You know I didn't also that you can castle if your rook is threatened.
But instead of making a new rule why don't you just move the white knight to capture the rook???
That's funny, I also think about it in a "death ray" sense.
You all are in good company - in a world championship match, Korchnoi asked the arbitor if he could castle if his rook was under attack. You know, because it would be pretty embarassing to castle, then learn that it was not legal, and then have to make a king move.
Kn x R, lol, man I didn't even see that. Chess blindness strikes again
That's funny, I also think about it in a "death ray" sense.
You all are in good company - in a world championship match, Korchnoi asked the arbitor if he could castle if his rook was under attack. You know, because it would be pretty embarassing to castle, then learn that it was not legal, and then have to make a king move.
LoL, Korchnoi? That's a little fail to not know that at his level. Very amusing though.
No, not at all. This Question actually arose several times in Grandmaster play. I believe it may have been Korchnoi who once brought that very question up to a tournament director, about the Rook passing thru an attacked square, during a tournament game. And the other case I heard of was a GM asking the TD "can he do that?" when his simul opponent did the same. In that case, some have suggested it was probably said in jest. Maybe it was Najdorf, but not sure. Anyone recall for sure>?
I don't think the en passant matters at all re pieces. It primarily prevents pawns from bypassing each other with impunity. Or else there would be many more completely locked up positions, and endgames would have pawns simply race past each at will, to reach promotion. It does not sound like a very interesting game to me. I might be wrong. Perhaps it would make an interesting experiment to try out!? If two players were to agree to make no En Passant captures during an unrated game, they could see what it was really like !? What do you think ?
yeah the diagram's just meant to illistrate that its possible (it's now black's turn actually) but white's knight wouldn't want to capture black's rook as this would have allowed whites own rook to be captured and prevent castling
Because the knight is in a sense pinned to the rook. Same, I never thought of this. All the beginner books say that when castling, the king can't pass through a line of check, so you can logically assume that the same goes for the rook. Interesting...
This is an interesting topic to add something to the fire I will offer another question that I have had for a long time but never asked because it's one of those things that I thought a player of decent level should know so here goes, is it legal to castle here?...
I believe so but, don't get me lying don't see any reason why not
This is an interesting topic to add something to the fire I will offer another question that I have had for a long time but never asked because it's one of those things that I thought a player of decent level should know so here goes, is it legal to castle here?...
Yes, he can castle.
Kingsmove: Yes, absolutely. That was the same situation one of the GM's I previously mentioned had. So ... o-o-o is possible & legal, assuming the King and that Rook have not moved before, and could be played if it is black's move.
Here is another interesting thought. Suppose in your diagram WT had just played Qb8+, what could happen? Well the Rook could take the Q by Rxb8 obviously. But if there was no knight on g8 could he play o-o instead? No, you cannot castle when you are in check, even tho you might be out of check afterwards, if you could. But here is the interesting part ...
Could BL play o-o-o and have the Ra8 TAKE the Queen as it sweeps across it? Still NO. The rules say the rank must be cleared of pieces between the K and R to castle. All pieces, even enemy pieces. This would also apply if the Q were on c8 or d8, you could not o-o-o with capture of the Q. Tho of course on Qd8+ you could play Kxd8 directly, but then the K has moved and no future castling allowed to black.
Here is another thing that could happen legally, if WT somehow just played Qd8+. Instead of Kxd8, he could play Nxd8 or Qxd8. Then he cannot o-o-o next move since his own piece is in the way on d8. But if he Moves the Q or N off of d8 his next move, then he Could play o-o-o again the next move. That move where he put his own piece back "in the way" of castling is what is known as "temporary ineligibility to castle". He could not do it while impeded but did not lose castling rights permanently, as he would have if his K had moved.
You cannot move the Rook, then put it back to a8 and have castling restored. Once a Rook is moved, BL could never castle using That Rook. Tho he might castle to the other side if the Rook there never moved. So if RxQb8 he could not play Ra8 next move then o-o-o the following move. But next move he Could play Nh6, then O-O on following move.
Kingsmove, that was a great diagram to explain from~! May I use it to show others?
Regards, CraigAC
What about taking a pawn En passant with any other piece on the board? Is that feasible? I know you can do it with pawns, but what about other pieces?
These may fall under the who really cares and I'm a dummy category so you have been forewarned.
I didn't always know that you can legally castle when your rook is threatened. Ok, most of us know this but did you know that when castling long your rook can pass through a line of attack? So that would only apply to the b1 or b8 square. I wasn't sure if it was possible so I tried it on my Chessmaster game and it worked. It might be useful to know in case you have never thought of that before.
En Passant allows capture of a pawn passing through a line of attack by another pawn but did you consider that a pawn can be pushed forward two spaces to avoid capture by any other piece?