07 Nov 05
Originally posted by TheBloopTrue, 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. 😉
True of False:
Castling is prohibited if the Rook would be exposed to capture after the castling move is made.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by crazyblue
True or false:
There is a possible position where you have to castle to checkmate the opponent. Moving only the rook would not be enough.
White to move and mate in 1 with 18. 0-0#
This position was reached in an odds game between Morphy and an unknown in 1858 in New Orleans. Morphy (as white) started without a queenside rook.
Here is the entire game:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Nd4 9.Bxd5+ Kd6 10.Qf7 Be6 11.Bxe6 Nxe6 12.Ne4+ Kd5 13.c4+ Kxe4 14.Qxe6 Qd4 15.Qg4+ Kd3 16.Qe2+ Kc2 17.d3+ Kxc1 18.0-0#
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by crazyblue
yeah thats what i was thinking of. and who else but morphy could have done that 😉
now i wonder if there is a position, so that the checkmate is along the d- or f-file. i cant think of any, where castling is required (and moving only rook isnt enough).
White to move and mate in 1.
The king must guard the escape square on c2 and can only do so via castling.
08 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ark13I know what you mean!
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. 😉
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:
(quote)
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
(end quote)
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.
🙂
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZhttp://www.rhp15.com/pictures/Awsome.jpg
[fen]r4b1r/ppp3pp/8/4p3/2Pq4/3P4/PP2QPPP/2k1K2R w K - 0 18[/fen]
White to move and mate in 1 with 18. 0-0#
This position was reached in an odds game between Morphy and an unknown in 1858 in New Orleans. Morphy (as white) started without a queenside rook.
Here is the entire game:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke ...[text shortened]... Be6 11.Bxe6 Nxe6 12.Ne4+ Kd5 13.c4+ Kxe4 14.Qxe6 Qd4 15.Qg4+ Kd3 16.Qe2+ Kc2 17.d3+ Kxc1 18.0-0#
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZHang on, technically the king could 'guard' c2 by moving to d1. But that wouldn't be check, it would be stalemate.
[fen]8/6B1/8/8/7R/3k2N1/5P2/R3K3 w Q - 0 1[/fen]
White to move and mate in 1.
The king must guard the escape square on c2 and can only do so via castling.
So what you really mean is that the castling is needed for the rook to place the king in check, AND the king to guard c2, right?
Sorry to be pedantic, I just want to make sure because half the time I can't even see how these setups work. I blame the small size of the board or something.
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by orfeoWell I thought that when answering a question on mate via castling I could assume that people would know that the solution would be via castling.
Hang on, technically the king could 'guard' c2 by moving to d1. But that wouldn't be check, it would be stalemate.
So what you really mean is that the castling is needed for the rook to place the king in check, AND the king to guard c2, right?
Sorry to be pedantic, I just want to make sure because half the time I can't even see how these setups work. I blame the small size of the board or something.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by TheBloopJust like #3 is another way of saying there must be no pieces between the rook and king. 🙂
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 ...[text shortened]... who teach or coach chess can probably have some fun with this with your students.
🙂