Hello,
Although this could be tied to the thread list starting with
Silverbantam on December 18, 2013 at 18:28pm
I may have read about someone who was a decent player asking about a specific rule for castling because he wanted to know if he could castle at the same time his castling rook was attacked. They told him that he could still castle. And if I am not mistaken, he went on to win his game. If the king is not in check or moving through check during a castling move, then the rook being attacked is irrelevant. Hopefully, the rules concerning castling for Redhotpawn.com purposes include this particular situation.
Originally posted by KingOnPointKorchnoi, the second ranked at the time asked if he could legally castle when his rook was enprise.
Hello,
Although this could be tied to the thread list starting with
Silverbantam on December 18, 2013 at 18:28pm
I may have read about someone who was a decent player asking about a specific rule for castling because he wanted to know if he could castle at the same time his castling rook was attacked. They told him that he could sti ...[text shortened]... ly, the rules concerning castling for Redhotpawn.com purposes include this particular situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Korchnoi
During the match between Karpov and Korchnoi, an amusing incident occurred. In the 21st game, Korchnoi played a strong opening novelty and, after a blunder by Karpov, achieved an overwhelming position. During this game, Korchnoi rose from the board, approached the arbiter and asked whether he could legally castle kingside in the current position, in which a bishop was attacking his rook on h1. The arbiter, Alberic O'Kelly de Galway, informed him that his intended move was legal; shortly after Korchnoi executed it, Karpov resigned.
This castling tale again. OK it is worth re-telling.
Korchnoi was asked what really happened in the incident.
http://chessvault.com/2006/04/29/victor-korchnoi-at-the-chess-bridge/
The link states:
"Korchnoi confirmed he did ask the question at that point, explaining that
the Russian chess rules left the situation a little ambiguous, and it was the
first time the situation had occurred in his games.
Considering the levels of tension surrounding the match and this game in particular,
Korchnoi thought it best to confirm with the match referee before making the move."
Korchnoi's claim: 'the Russian chess rules left the situation a little ambiguous.'
Is furtther backed up by.
Purdy played 14...0-0-0 and Averback objected.
Averbakh pointed out that the Rook passed over a square controlled
by White, so it was illegal.
Purdy proved (possibly with the help of a bemused arbiter), that the castling
was legal since this applies only to the King.
To which Averbakh replied "Only the King? Not the Rook?"
Originally posted by greenpawn34Wow, this post is worthy of Winter or Soltis. It puts the Korchnoi story in an entirely different light.
This castling tale again. OK it is worth re-telling.
Korchnoi was asked what really happened in the incident.
http://chessvault.com/2006/04/29/victor-korchnoi-at-the-chess-bridge/
The link states:
"Korchnoi confirmed he did ask the question at that point, explaining that
[b]the Russian chess rules left the situation a little ambiguous, ...[text shortened]... since this applies only to the King.
To which Averbakh replied "Only the King? Not the Rook?"[/b]
Originally posted by greenpawn34Averbakh would not have objected to the guy just moving the rook, since is passes by an attacked square so what would have been his problem with continuing to castle?
This castling tale again. OK it is worth re-telling.
Korchnoi was asked what really happened in the incident.
http://chessvault.com/2006/04/29/victor-korchnoi-at-the-chess-bridge/
The link states:
"Korchnoi confirmed he did ask the question at that point, explaining that
[b]the Russian chess rules left the situation a little ambiguous, ...[text shortened]... since this applies only to the King.
To which Averbakh replied "Only the King? Not the Rook?"[/b]
