# Queen side castle

Ichmude
Only Chess 11 Jun '19 06:33
1. venda
Dave
14 Jun '19 11:15
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?
2. moonbus
Uber-Nerd
14 Jun '19 12:06
@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?
The short answer is, the opposing king must somehow get out of check, even though your knight is pinned. However he need not move his king to do it; he might take your knight.
3. DeepThought
14 Jun '19 13:16
@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.
Sounds more like he was queating to me.
4. 14 Jun '19 13:27
@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?
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.
5. 14 Jun '19 13:301 edit
@deepthought said
Sounds more like he was queating to me.
I do not think so, none of us knee what we were doing. The guy who knew the scholars mate would win early or be very frustrated, he won most of the time with it.

But nice pun, made me smile.
6. venda
Dave
14 Jun '19 17:51
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.
Yes that is sound logic and it is the case.
The game has moved on and my opponent had to get out of check
7. wolfgang59
Mr. Wolf
15 Jun '19 23:08
@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.
Some time ago Greenpawn gave a problem (game?) where
the solution was to castle with a promoted pawn. It was a
8. 19 Jun '19 10:12
@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.
Nope, it's just that these "complicated" rules were sometimes taught badly in the CCCP. Some of them had problems with the threefold repetition rule, too.
9. WOLFE63
Tra il dire e il far
20 Jun '19 10:11
@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.
That nutshell appears to crunch true.
Thanks!
10. wolfgang59
Mr. Wolf
28 Jun '19 00:05
@wolfgang59
Here is a link to the vertical castling problem.

https://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/12/11/outside-the-box/
11. 01 Jul '19 16:22
@venda

Yes, and further, the rook can be under attack and castling is still allowed
12. wolfgang59
Mr. Wolf
04 Jul '19 01:34
@mwmiller said

I believe those are all of the rules for castling.
... and it must be an original rook! (Not a pawn promotion)