An interesting variation on the check question :-
The principal of check is that your King is in such a position that it could theoretically be taken on the next move.
I am currently playing a game where I am checked by a rook.
I can block the check by placing my knight in the rooks path.
In doing this I put his king in check.
In theory I cannot "take" his king on my next move because I would have a discovered check on my king.
Does he still have to move his king out of check?
This is not asking for advice on a current game as I have already made the knight move

@venda said
An interesting variation on the check question :-
The principal of check is that your King is in such a position that it could theoretically be taken on the next move.
I am currently playing a game where I am checked by a rook.
I can block the check by placing my knight in the rooks path.
In doing this I put his king in check.
In theory I cannot "take" his king on m ...[text shortened]... ut of check?
This is not asking for advice on a current game as I have already made the knight move

@eladar said
@greenpawn34

Reminds me of some kids I watched playing when I first started to try to learn to play chess. One kid castles with his queen to b1 and rook to c1. He called it quastling and believed it was a legal move.

@venda said
An interesting variation on the check question :-
The principal of check is that your King is in such a position that it could theoretically be taken on the next move.
I am currently playing a game where I am checked by a rook.
I can block the check by placing my knight in the rooks path.
In doing this I put his king in check.
In theory I cannot "take" his king on m ...[text shortened]... ut of check?
This is not asking for advice on a current game as I have already made the knight move

@deepthought said
Sounds more like he was queating to me.

@eladar said
The pin thing is based on the principle that a king cannot be taken. If they were to get rid of that rule and make the game better by allowing you to capture and kill the opposing king to achieve victory how would it play out?

If he stayed and left your knight pinned protecting your king, then on your turn you could capture his king ending the game. The rook would not have time to capture your king even though it would only take one turn.

@mwmiller said
EDIT:
Let me try this again. I did not do a good job of proof-reading my previous post.

The only restriction on the rook that is castling is that it cannot have already been moved.

The king cannot have already moved, and he also cannot castle while in check and he cannot move across or end up on a square that is under attack by the opponent.

And lastly, all square ...[text shortened]... ok that is involved in castling must be empty.

I believe those are all of the rules for castling.

@paul-leggett said
I remember reading about Korchnoi questioning the rules about queenside castling in a game once as well, so the rule must be a little fuzzier than one would believe.

@mwmiller said
EDIT:
Let me try this again. I did not do a good job of proof-reading my previous post.

The only restriction on the rook that is castling is that it cannot have already been moved.

The king cannot have already moved, and he also cannot castle while in check and he cannot move across or end up on a square that is under attack by the opponent.

And lastly, all square ...[text shortened]... ok that is involved in castling must be empty.

I believe those are all of the rules for castling.

@wolfgang59
Here is a link to the vertical castling problem.

https://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/12/11/outside-the-box/

@venda

Yes, and further, the rook can be under attack and castling is still allowed

@mwmiller said

I believe those are all of the rules for castling.