Let suppose that a rule was made where you could castle even in check. Now you just checked your opponent and you are in such a situation that your win is very obvious.
But then your opponent still has the option of castling left then what will you do! I hope you are getting me. Actually, all the rules in chess are made to create balance and equilibrium. Even rules like stalemate were made for this purpose only. As per the standard rules, castling is temporarily prevented if the square on which the king stands is attacked by one or more of the opponent pieces.
However, once the king gets out the check, you can castle. The short answer is No. In chess, the game ends as soon as your king is checkmated.
If the king is in check, if the move of castling puts your king in check, if the king or the rook has already moved or there is a piece between them, then in all these cases you cannot castle. Also Read: Is Castling with two hands illegal?
Hope you understand everything that I discussed with you. I myself struggled a lot with this and thought that you might be also facing the same issue. So I tried my level best to simplify things for you using my learnings and research. I hope this post was helpful for you. You may also like to check out my chess recommendations page. I know the actual problems that chess players face. I created this site to make chess easy to understand for newcomers, and also to help players of all levels of ability to improve their chess-playing skills.
Castling requires lots of planning and preparation. The logistics of moving two pieces at once is quite complicated. If the enemy is at your throat, implementing this action is far too difficult to successfully set in motion. I think the real reason is that castling came in after checking. Similarly to the double pawn move Similarly, en passant exists as a nod to the original rules where pawns could only move a single square. I play on both sites chess. Both allow castling even if squares between rook and king are attacked!
Forums General Chess Discussion. Mar 22, 1. Mar 22, 2. I personally believe that this rule is meant to "balance" the castling move. Just my two cents. Mar 22, 3. Because castling is a defensive move, you shouldn't be able to avoid a threat with it. Mar 22, 4. Mar 22, 5. Mar 22, 6. Frankly, to enable preventing castling with checks, me thinks. Mar 22, 7. Havent a clue. 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. And here is an example of long castling. First, white castles long, then black castles long.
When castling long, the rook moves three squares. This site is supported by advertising and by donations.
0コメント