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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 02 May '10 16:27
    I have always known that according to the chess rules the castling is impossible when the king or rooke is under the fire. But look at this?!
    Game 7400405 and move 21.
    Are the rules changed?
  2. Subscriber Ragwort
    Ex Duris Gloria
    02 May '10 16:34
    http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/help/index.php?help=castling
  3. 02 May '10 16:34
    It's amazing that you are 1600 and you have this wrong.
    The King cannot castle if it is being attacked. There is no rule saying you can't castle if your Rook is attacked.

    I also read a guy who was 1600 and he didn't know about En Passant!
    I must really suck if average everyday people who don't even know the rules are better than me.
  4. Standard member clandarkfire
    Grammar Nazi
    02 May '10 16:39
    Korchnoi didn't know this rule either.
  5. 02 May '10 16:49
    LoL ya I remember that. I think he was just having a brain fart.
  6. Standard member randolph
    the walrus
    02 May '10 17:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Dirty Uncle Phil
    LoL ya I remember that. I think he was just having a brain fart.
    No, he genuinely didn't know what the rule was.
  7. 02 May '10 17:03
    Too funny. Korchnoi rules.
  8. 02 May '10 19:49
    Originally posted by Dirty Uncle Phil
    It's amazing that you are 1600 and you have this wrong.
    The King cannot castle if it is being attacked. There is no rule saying you can't castle if your Rook is attacked.

    I also read a guy who was 1600 and he didn't know about En Passant!
    I must really suck if average everyday people who don't even know the rules are better than me.
    This is a situation that comes up in a minority of games. I'm pretty sure in the en passant thread it was mentioned that a GM needed clarification on the legality of castling while the rook is attacked.
  9. Standard member JonathanB of London
    Curb Your Enthusiasm
    02 May '10 19:57
    Originally posted by Darax The Good
    I'm pretty sure in the en passant thread it was mentioned that a GM needed clarification on the legality of castling while the rook is attacked.
    that was Korchnoi as mentioned above ... during a candidates match with Karpov in 1974
  10. 02 May '10 20:24 / 2 edits
    There is also Kindermann - Korchnoi, Ptuj, 1995.

    Black to play



    Black played 26...0-0 and the game was later drawn 20 odd moves later.

    However when you play over the game....Keep your eye on the Black h8 Rook...😕

  11. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    02 May '10 20:30
    Nothing unusual castlewise about that game, if you move the rook, you can't castle on that side but you can on the other side if that rook and the king hasn't moved, and not going out of, into, or through check of the king but that rook could have come under attack and still castle, but he moved both rooks so no castle.
  12. 02 May '10 21:06
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Nothing unusual castlewise about that game, if you move the rook, you can't castle on that side but you can on the other side if that rook and the king hasn't moved, and not going out of, into, or through check of the king but that rook could have come under attack and still castle, but he moved both rooks so no castle.
    I think you're missing the point..that Black's next move was to castle his king using the h8 rook, having already moved it.
  13. 02 May '10 22:46
    Originally posted by greenpawn34

    ....Keep your eye on the Black h8 Rook...😕
    FIDE rule 34c:

    Castling may still take place if the Rook used has not moved too much.
  14. 03 May '10 02:04
    Originally posted by MontyMoose
    FIDE rule 34c:

    Castling may still take place if the Rook used has not moved too much.
    ...and your opponent has passed his 3 drink limit.
  15. 03 May '10 05:19
    Korchnoi may not have been bewildered even if he asked the arbiter if castling was legal and even if he said he didn`t know when later asked.

    Simply asking the arbiter if something is illegal doesn`t mean that one necessarily didn`t know.

    Also if Korchnoi did say he didnt`t know after the fact doesn`t necessarily mean he didn`t know it merely means he said he didn`t know.