I was playing whites in blitz when my opponent was able to castle in the following position:
Isn't it the rule that you can't castle when any of the squares is under attack? Wouldn't my bishop prevent castling in this case? Is there a glitch in the blitz software?
Thanks
Originally posted by Pawn RebellionThe "squares under attack" must be the ones the King is passing through. The King doesn't pass through b8, so your Bishop doesn't prevent Queen side castling.
I was playing whites in blitz when my opponent was able to castle in the following position:
[fen]2kr1b1r/pp2qpp1/2p2n1p/8/Q3pB2/2N2P1P/PPP3P1/R3R1K1 [/fen]
Isn't it the rule that you can't castle when any of the squares is under attack? Wouldn't my bishop prevent castling in this case? Is there a glitch in the blitz software?
Thanks
Last response is absolutely correct. The rules of castling are:
1. No pieces between K and R
2. Neither piece can have moved prior to castling
3. Cannot castle passing through check
4. Cannot castle to get out of check
The rook indeed can pass through an attacked sq because you do not check any piece but the King.
Originally posted by Pawn RebellionI guess the rebellion is in not reading the rules of play. 😕
I was playing whites in blitz when my opponent was able to castle in the following position:
[fen]2kr1b1r/pp2qpp1/2p2n1p/8/Q3pB2/2N2P1P/PPP3P1/R3R1K1 [/fen]
Isn't it the rule that you can't castle when any of the squares is under attack? Wouldn't my bishop prevent castling in this case? Is there a glitch in the blitz software?
Thanks
Originally posted by scacchipazzoFIDE added a fifth condition to prevent vertical castling (which was previously legal, as Tim Krabbé pointed out in a humourous problem). This condition states that the rook and king must be on the same rank.
Last response is absolutely correct. The rules of castling are:
1. No pieces between K and R
2. Neither piece can have moved prior to castling
3. Cannot castle passing through check
4. Cannot castle to get out of check
The rook indeed can pass through an attacked sq because you do not check any piece but the King.
Originally posted by greenpawn31This is creepy - who is greenpawn31 (one of my unknown children?)
You are in good company. There was a famous Karpov-Korchnoi game where Korchnoi's rook was under attack and Korchnoi had to ask the arbiter if it was legal for him to castle. According to the great man himself "it had just never happened before..."
on the 9th Jan I posted this:
**********************************************
We all had to learn sometime - some of us are still learning.
In the 1974 Karpov v Korchnoi match this position arose.
White (Korchnoi) to play.
Korchnoi went to the arbiter, Alberic O'Kelly, to ask if it was OK for
White to play 18.0-0 here. Korchnoi thought because the White Rook
was attacked then castling kingside may be illegal.
(Castling Kingside in this case IS permitted.)
The game continued 18.0-0 Bxc4 19.f4 1-0.
***************************************
Well at least we agree.
I did that in a league game - it was a genuine mistake.
If my opponent had spotted it I would have been forced to make
a King move (touch move) and lost.
Thread 98689