Originally posted by ark13
True, but not for the reason that you gave. It's because the king would cross check if the rook would be exposed to attack after castling. You almost got me to say false though.
I know what you mean!
The reason I phrased the question that way was just to have a little fun and see if anyone would fall for it by answering with a quick "false"...
What happened was, I received "Laskers Manual of Chess" (Emmanuel, not Edward) the other day, and as I was reading through the first part of the book, Lasker is describing the basic rules of chess...and in talking about Castling, he listed the four instances in which castling is prohibited:
1) The King is in "check" i.e. menaced with capture
2) The King, or Rook has already made a move
3) The move of the rook is obstructed
4) The King or Rook after castling would be exposed to capture
I looked at #4 and thought, "wait, who cares if the ROOK is exposed to capture, it's only the KING that can't be exposed..." then it hit me...
And you are exactly right of course... When the rook is exposed to capture after a castling move, it means that the King would have had to castle "through" check, which he can not do.
Nowadays, when we explain castling rules to a beginner, we always say that the King can't castle 'through' check...but Lasker didn't put it that way, he presented it in a totally different way, and I really had to think about that for a minute before I understood what he was talking about...
When you see rule # 4 the way Lasker phrased it, your initial gut reaction is to say 'false'... Just thought I'd have a little fun to see if anyone else would think the same thing.
Any of you out there who teach or coach chess can probably have some fun with this with your students.