Why can't you castle?

The situation has never happened to me  but I wondered - why is it illegal to castle out of check?

it is a rule

Because in theory of chess, castling consists two moves. First you move the rook next to the king and THEN the king jumps to the other side of the rook. So if you try to castle while in check, enemy can take your king because you first move your ROOK.

Similar thing happens at en passant as well. It means 'taking while passing', because the enemy pawn makes two moves actually. First, the pawn moves one square and you take him before he/she can make the second move. This logic always works throughout the chess.

actually you move your king first.... because, if you played tournament chess you would know this, if you touched the rook first you would be forced to move the rook due to the touch move. If you touch the king first you can move it normally or castle.

That is just a tradition of today's tournaments, and FIDE is not a very good authority on chess.

 +1.

I believe the USCF rules part company with the FIDE laws here. If you touch the rook first you may still castle (got my USCF rulebook open).

I also seem to recall a similar "arbiters" discussion in a 1990s Chess Life, and the interpretation was that one could also move the rook and then the king. Maybe some td can speak up on this one as I'm less sure?

Castling used to be different way back when. It is probably a remnant from those days.

It's something about giving the king the ability to move like a knight one time in the game to get to safety but they added that you could not use it while in check to prevent people from using it for unintended checkmate escaping purposes IIRC. Later they condensed the common Ke2 Rf1 Kg1 into one move to speed things along but the check rule stayed.

It's similar to how they added en passant when they gave the pawns the ability to jump forward two squares on it's first move to prevent people from using it to get passed pawns in an unintended way.

I was addressing the US-located member who was referring to presumably USCF tournament experience.

This is a great topic for discussion !!

I enjoy the thoughts and reasons contributed by those so far ! Great converstations and arguments !

My thoughts: The act of castling and the act of en passant fall under the realm of "luxuries" ... in other worlds ... those tactics are not necessary in order to conduct a complete game of chess.

I've played many chess games where I didn't castle, and I've played many more where I forefeited the en passant ... so as luxuries ... they hold a probability of 50% play and 50% no play. So let's put these numbers in a sitution:

White's white bishop calls check on Black's King, meaning that Black's King is on a white square. Now, Black's King has 3 rule-book options:

a.) block the check ... not applicable in this scenario

b.) capture the checking piece ... not applicable in this scenario

or c.) move out of check ... giving Black's King 50% chance of castling and 50% chance of not castling ... since the King has two options: move one square out of check or move several squares out of check by castling ... since the King has two options, as opposed to one, it seems that tradition or practicality dictates that the King has too much ability in this situation, and that the King being checked must answer the check prior to exercising the "luxury" to castle.

In a similar manner, En Passant seems to be a "luxury" in that ... if the taking of the two-square adavancing pawn does not suit you ... you may pass it up, however, the luxury expires upon any other move other than taking the two-square advancing pawn immediately, on the next move.  In this way, an opponent doesn't get two moves by passing the en passant and moving another piece, and then coming back to the en passant and completing an en passant as the second move.

The luxury has conditions in order to balance the cause and effect between opponents ... otherwise they are not luxuries but merely "pre-computer" cheats that prevent a game from unraveling in a linear, or scheduled manner.

This just adds more mystery to the mind boggling, perfection of this board game that we love and call ... Chess !!

Like stalemate.

I don't think your move order is superior to FIDE's one. Moving the King first is way better, as it avoids any confusion.

After the king is moved by two squares, instead of one, there is absolutly no possibility other than castling. Before you even touch the rook the opponent will already know you will take it and jump next to the king.

If you move the rook first, however, it is possible that you are intending to move just it, not the King. 

What does the USCF rulebook say exactly?

It says if you touch the rook first you may still castle, and if castling is illegal then the rook must be moved (this asumes a castling-like position, obviously).

Wow that must create a few problems in international games. What else does the USCF do different?

That's the biggest difference that I know of.

In Australia! But everything goes backwards or upside down or something there and has a pouch and is descended from criminals... the BCF... please -- they supplied the very criminals that would populate Australia while driving on the wrong side of the road and calling Freedom Fries by the silly name, "chips" -- add to that state supported royalty -- kings and queens and princes and other such quaint absurdities -- does anyone with any sense go to such people for rules?  And as for FIDE? The president of FIDE believes he's been in contact with extra-terrestrials... FIDE makes the International Olympic Committee seem competent, efficient, and incorruptible. And who can forget 1999 when the legendary Alexander Khalifman defeated Vladimir Akopian in a gruelling 6 game contest to become undisputed FIDE world chess champion! Ah, FIDE. I'll stick with the good old USCF, with it's ASCII ratings pages and "American" champions born in the American heartland -- Novokuznetsk, Osaka, Minsk, Riga, Sevastapol... -- God Bless America! 

Until now I didn't even know that somewhere in the world moving the rook first is allowed in castling. It's ... strange - I now can't get the picture out of my head that in the US kings "jump" into the safety of their castles. Btw using both hands reminds me of conmen, i.e. the movement of thimble riggers.

Freedom Fries??

What a twat! You are the epitomy of American ignorance.