Author: Norm Pollock
Date: 09:30:24 02/19/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2006 at 11:35:15, Steffen Jakob wrote: >On February 19, 2006 at 11:23:47, Richard G. Fadden wrote: > >>For some reason I thought castling was not allowed if the rook in question is >>enpris. So in summary, King in check, can't castle, and if any intervening >>squares are under attack, no castling, but I also thought that if the rook is >>enpris - also, no castling. Probably everyone on this forum can straighten me >>out. A famous engine just castled when the rook was enpris, so I am now >>thinking I have had the rules of chess wrong for quite a while... I assume I am >>wrong, no??? > >Yes, the rook may be under attack. See also: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castling_%28chess%29 > >Greetings, >Steffen. I have a very, very theoretical question about castling. It is so theoretical that every time I ask it, some people get annoyed. So my apologies in advance. Proceed at your own risk. According to the rules why is it NOT permitted to castle the "3rd castle" that can be created by underpromotion of the king pawn, assuming all other conditions are satisfied? Here are the rules from the link in the prior post : Castling is only permissible if all of the following conditions hold: The player must never have moved the king; The player must never have moved the rook involved in castling; There must be no pieces between the king and the rook; The king must not be in check, the square the king crosses must not be attacked by an enemy piece, and the act of castling must not place the king in check. (The last part of this rule is part of the general rule of never placing one's king in check.)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.