After all, they are also humans! Now another question that you might ask is, can you castle when the squares through which rook is going to pass is under attack? Although castling was allowed. From the above two examples, it is very clear that castling can be done even when the rook is under attack or threatened, or any other square where the rook is going to pass is also under attack. I hope you understood everything clearly.
If you found this article helpful then please do share it with others. And if interested, you can also check out my following article related to castling. No, a rook should not be called a castle because as per the standard chess terminology a rook is called a rook. Many chess players often call a rook a castle due to its resemblance to a castle but it is considered informal and wrong. As per the four rules of castling, if either the king or rook have been moved then castling is not allowed.
You cannot castle only if either the king or rook has already moved once, if there is a chess piece between them, if the king is under attack, or if the squares through which the king is going to pass or the square on which the king is going to finally land is under attack. Looking at the board from White's side the left side is the queen's side and the right side is the king's side.
As you may guess there are two ways you can castle : on the king's side king's side castle or short castle or on the queen's side queens's side castle or long castle. You should keep in mind that when you castle you should always move the king first and then the rook so that your opponent doesn't claim that your intention was to move the rook remember the rule : If you touch a piece you have to move it.
Black is unable to castle on either side. He can't perform the long castle because the rook at a8 was moved. He can't castle on the king's side either because the square at f8 is under the control of the white bishop from b4. The rules of chess state that castling is illegal when the king or rook has moved earlier, or the king is in check, or it would pass through check to castle.
Having been in a check which was removed by interposing another piece, or by taking not with king or rook that is involved in the castling, of course the checking piece does not prevent the player from castling later. The rook can pass through check, or more precisely, through an attacked square.
When all conditions that allow castling are met rook and king have not moved, squares between rook and king are empty, king does not castle from, through, or to check , then castling is allowed, and it is of no importance whether the rook is attacked or goes via an attacked square.
So, when white castles long, a black attack to a1 or to b1 does not make this castling move illegal. In the diagram above: suppose the white king and rooks have never moved. Castling long is legal for white, but in fact, given the position, it is the worst move he can make! Here is an example of short castling. First, white castles short, then black castles short. When castling short, the rook moves two squares.
The rule is that if you are targeting the King, or a square the King has to pass through, or the square he ends up on, you cannot castle. Forums General Chess Discussion. Apr 19, 1. Hi, This might be a basic question which is answered already. What are the situations when a castling is not allowed be it king or queen's side.
Request an answer to all the scenarios or at least a link where I can study the same. Thanks in advance whoever helps me out. Regards, David. Apr 19, 2. Apr 19, 3. Apr 19, 4. Apr 19, 5. Apr 19, 6. Apr 19, 7. Apr 19, 8.
0コメント