Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Help Forum

Help Forum

  1. 24 Jan '07 00:55
    Game 3034784

    Help! Did RHP just allow an illegal castling move or am I overlooking a rule making this castle legal?
  2. Standard member cadwah
    ¯\_(^.^)_/¯
    24 Jan '07 00:58
    Originally posted by kingarthur
    Game 3034784

    Help! Did RHP just allow an illegal castling move or am I overlooking a rule making this castle legal?
    There seems to be nothing wrong with that castle.
  3. Subscriber KingDavid403
    King David
    24 Jan '07 01:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kingarthur
    Game 3034784

    Help! Did RHP just allow an illegal castling move or am I overlooking a rule making this castle legal?
    It looks like a illegal castle to me. It clearly is crossing over a check of your bishop on e-4. I would stop the game and send in feedback with the game id and explain the problem. Or wait until someone else responds to this post that knows more about RHP and what to do in a case like this. It's a first one on me
  4. 24 Jan '07 01:05
    Originally posted by KingDavid403
    It looks like a illegal castle to me. It clearly is crossing over a check. I would stop the game and send in feedback with the game id and explain the problem. Or wait until someone else responds to this post that knows more about RHP and what to do in a case like this. It's a first one on me
    As long as the KING doesn't pass through an attacked square it's ok. The rook can.
  5. Standard member cadwah
    ¯\_(^.^)_/¯
    24 Jan '07 01:06
    Originally posted by KingDavid403
    It looks like a illegal castle to me. It clearly is crossing over a check. I would stop the game and send in feedback with the game id and explain the problem. Or wait until someone else responds to this post that knows more about RHP and what to do in a case like this. It's a first one on me
    The King did not cross check, only the rook passed through an attacked square which is a legal move I believe.
  6. Subscriber KingDavid403
    King David
    24 Jan '07 01:07 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
    As long as the KING doesn't pass through an attacked square it's ok. The rook can.
    Really, I didn't know that. Learn something knew everyday Interesting. And here I thought I knew how to play chess I at least thought I knew how the pieces could move anyway. Maybe it's time I do read a chess book.
  7. 24 Jan '07 01:10
    Originally posted by kingarthur
    Game 3034784

    Help! Did RHP just allow an illegal castling move or am I overlooking a rule making this castle legal?
    White's castling was perfectly fine and legal. Black's bishop didn't control any of the squares that the King passed through, so there isn't a problem.
  8. 24 Jan '07 01:44
    Originally posted by David Tebb
    White's castling was perfectly fine and legal. Black's bishop didn't control any of the squares that the King passed through, so there isn't a problem.
    I'm not sure what is meant by control of the square. Can you please explain further. I thought my white bishop on e4 should have prevented a queenside castle by exercising control over the b1 square?
  9. 24 Jan '07 02:08
    Ah...I understand the rule now. That was a first for me. I thought I knew all the rules of chess.
  10. 25 Jan '07 12:44
    Originally posted by kingarthur
    Ah...I understand the rule now. That was a first for me. I thought I knew all the rules of chess.
    Don't feel bad....from Wikipedia:

    "Viktor Korchnoi, in his 1974 Candidates final match with Anatoly Karpov, famously asked the arbiter if castling was legal when the castling rook was under attack. The answer was in the affirmative, and Korchnoi ended up winning the game. It is actually a beginner's question, since the legality of a move is basic and essential knowledge."

    I believe stress was what caused Korchnoi to ask such an elementary question, since he had to be aware of it.