I'm crazy confused on castling

so if u control a spot between a king and a rook they shouldn't be able to castle. yet if a dark squared bishop is controlling the dark square closer to the rook on the queen side the king can castle in this game. is there a rule I don't know of or is the game glitching?

king cannot pass thru a square which is in attack by opponent. also u cannot castle when u r under check

king cannot pass thru a square which is in attack by opponent. also u cannot castle when u r under check

lace up, you mean your trying to castle to the left and its all clear, but the bishop controls a square on the other side (right side of king NOT IN CHECK OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT RIGHT SIDE OF KING BACK FILE) not even in the way of your beautiful castle to the left yet still it will not allow you to castle to the left because the enemy is controlling a back file square on the right?? i think your question is too complex for the average chess plater. also look at your question closely, it dosent make sence but i understand it because it happened to me once, maybe it happened the game i played against you. some serious bulshit if you ask me because ive never seen or herd of that rule and ive been playing chess since i was 4

What? 

Just one of them silly chess rules that make no sense. You should be able to capture the rook if it passes through the queen or bishops path. Just like en passant, if the pawn moves two squares why can only another pawn capture it and not another piece?

 

And also not making any sense, if you can't move into check why not make a rule to prevent all blunders that could essentially end the game? Why not say the queen can't move where it can be captured as well. It would be consistent with the spirit of the rule of the King not being able to move into check.

The rules off chess serve only one purpose: to create a game rich in strategy and tactics.

En passant was a natural addition when pawns were given the ability to move two squares forward on their first move. This way the pawns can't become locked (lines closed) without a chance to capture (chance to open).

The rules have nothing to do with battle, or royalty, or foot soldiers,  or any silly imaginings like this.

Leaving a king in check isn't a blunder, it's illegal; just like the point of mate is that there are no legal moves, not that the king is blundered/captured. So no, that is not the spirit of the rule.

 

Every other piece in the game is expendable.  The king is not so that suggestion isn't consistent with the kings movement rules.

I always explain it to kids this way.  You can't castle out of check, in to check or through check.

you can castle as long as you are not in check, moving into check by castling, or through a square that is attacked by an enemy piece. (through check)  The rook however, is not a king, and if you castle Q-side, your b8 or b1 square may be under enemy control and castling will still be 100% legal.  I think (not 100% sure) that you can also castle if your rook is under attack, but again, double check (lol) that and don't assume that to be true without making sure.  you also can't castle if you have already moved your king.  even if it is back on the "normal" square at the time.  Hope this helps!

 

You can still castle if your rook is being attacked. Also, the rule about movement applies to the king and rook you want to castle with. If the rook has moved, even if it back on the original square,  you can't castle on that side.

It would be a blunder if it was not illegal, the rule is a safety net to prevent blundering the game away. It is every bit the spirit of the rule, to prevent blundering the game away.

GooberPile كتب: blitzcopter wrote: GooberPile wrote: And also not making any sense, if you can't move into check why not make a rule to prevent all blunders that could essentially end the game? Why not say the queen can't move where it can be captured as well. It would be consistent with the spirit of the rule of the King not being able to move into check.Leaving a king in check isn't a blunder, it's illegal; just like the point of mate is that there are no legal moves, not that the king is blundered/captured. So no, that is not the spirit of the rule.It would be a blunder if it was not illegal, the rule is a safety net to prevent blundering the game away. It is every bit the spirit of the rule, to prevent blundering the game away.

If you're able to move into check then much of strategy and tactics are completely lost.

Notice the following position:

White will play Ke4 and after Qxe4 Qxc7 white has more pieces and will win.

or after Ke4 Kb6 Kxe3 white will win.

It becomes a game of whoever has more pieces wins. In actual chess, it's not just the pieces, but how well they're positioned.

 

The rule is not a safety net. The goal is checkmate. Essentially, to reach a position such that the king is attacked and would be taken on the next move (if checkmate didn't end the game). 

 

Safety nets don't exist in chess. 

 

Games are won due to mistakes and many times those mistakes are blunders. 

Yep, this happened to me earlier today. The rook ridiculously is allowed to pass through a check on the queenside as long as the check is not interfering with the king. I think it is just the square next to the rook. I had a queen threatening it & the rook just castled right through it. Ruined my game. Haha.

"Check" applies only to the king. You mean the rook could pass through an attack? Not every attack is a check. Other pieces exist!

Everyone has to play by the rules, so we might as well learn them so as not to get caught with our pants down, so to speak.

The Texan has it correct:

You may not castle if you are in check.

You may not castle if the K passes through the line of check.

You may not castle if the K would end up in check.

The K always moves 2 squares toward the R, then the R is placed on the other side of the K.

You may castle either to the K side (algebraic notation 0-0) or the Q side (0-0-0), if there are no pieces between the K and R and if neither the K nor the R has been moved before.

Far more players do not understand the 'en passant' pawn rules since it happens or could happen much less often. I have been accused of cheating between 10 to 20 times over the years when I have made the en passant move. Please look it up!

I dont think anybody here gets it.. you cant castle left if you are checked into castling right.