I recently played a game in which I was white. I had a rook covering the b8 channel and my opponent long castled despite me covering this square. I wasn't aware you could castle as long as any square was challenged? Have I gotten this rule wrong for almost 50 years?
Yes.
You can castle as long as the square that is challenged is not any square where the king would pass through. Even if you control b8, the opponent can still castle queenside because the king moves only from e8 to c8, so b8 doesn't affect its movement. The no-castling rule only applies if the square that is controlled is where the king would move to or pass through if castling. For example, if you controlled d8, queenside castle would not be possible.
Castling is forbidden if one of your pieces covers a square of King's route , rook's route is irrelevant.
Castling Rules:
- The king may not have moved before.
- The participating rook may not have moved before.
- The king must not castle in to check, for it is forbidden to move into check.
- The king must not pass through a square where he would be checked; this is kind of like en passant. So the king may not pass over or move onto an attacked square.
These are the restrictions of castling, and the last one is what you're looking for. The rook doesn't care if it moves over an attacked square because it's legal to move a rook "into check"; rooks can be captured, rooks can be traded, rooks can initiate trades, rooks can go desperado; all of these things are actions the king cannot do for he must stay out of check. But the rook doesn't care.
So, uh, yeah. The answer is yes, it was legal, and yes, you had it wrong.
(And what is with me getting the same chess CAPTCHA twice in a row? I got 2 of the same earlier today, and 2 of the same now.)
- The king may not have moved before.
- The participating rook may not have moved before.
- The king must not castle in to check, for it is forbidden to move into check.
- The king must not pass through a square where he would be checked; this is kind of like en passant. So the king may not pass over or move onto an attacked square.
These are the restrictions of castling, and the last one is what you're looking for. The rook doesn't care if it moves over an attacked square because it's legal to move a rook "into check"; rooks can be captured, rooks can be traded, rooks can initiate trades, rooks can go desperado; all of these things are actions the king cannot do for he must stay out of check. But the rook doesn't care.
So, uh, yeah. The answer is yes, it was legal, and yes, you had it wrong.
(And what is with me getting the same chess CAPTCHA twice in a row? I got 2 of the same earlier today, and 2 of the same now.)
Also
- The king must not be in check
- The king and rook must be on the player's first rank (no castling with a promoted rook on e8)
- Neither piece may pass through, or onto, an occupied square.
- The king must not be in check
- The king and rook must be on the player's first rank (no castling with a promoted rook on e8)
- Neither piece may pass through, or onto, an occupied square.
@RapidVariants
Oh yeah, I forgot those. I believe the second was because of a game that caused a lot of controversy. And the last one, is, of course, common sense.
Oh yeah, I forgot those. I believe the second was because of a game that caused a lot of controversy. And the last one, is, of course, common sense.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.