Hi,

this may be a simple question, but:

Can you castle across a square attacked by a Knight?

Or is it only a line of check, like from a Queen, Rook, or Bishop that you can not castle across?

Thanks!

"matt -`;'-" wrote in message
...
Hi,

this may be a simple question, but:

Can you castle across a square attacked by a Knight?

Or is it only a line of check, like from a Queen, Rook, or Bishop that you
can not castle across?

Thanks!



The King may not castle through a square attacked by any piece, including
the knight (or pawn, for that matter). A rook can move through an attacked
square when castling.

Regards,
Arfur

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...


A rook can move through an attacked square when castling.


Excuse me, but what does that mean exactly?

"Vasileios Zografos" wrote in message
news:1130102184.7662f96830858da1d310fbeba93e7e0a@t eranews...

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...


A rook can move through an attacked square when castling.


Excuse me, but what does that mean exactly?



Well, for example suppose white has Na6, black has Ra8 and Ke8. Then 0-0-0
by black is legal, even though b8 is attacked by the white knight.

Regards,
Arfur

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...

Well, for example suppose white has Na6, black has Ra8 and Ke8. Then 0-0-0
by black is legal, even though b8 is attacked by the white knight.

Regards,
Arfur

Ok I understand.
I didn't know that fine point actually.
Thank you

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:22:45 +0100, "Vasileios Zografos"
wrote:


"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...

Well, for example suppose white has Na6, black has Ra8 and Ke8. Then 0-0-0
by black is legal, even though b8 is attacked by the white knight.

Regards,
Arfur

Ok I understand.
I didn't know that fine point actually.
Thank you

According to legend, neither did one of the well-known Soviet
grandmasters (Averbakh?), in a highly public setting.

Steve Grant wrote:
According to legend, neither did one of the well-known Soviet
grandmasters (Averbakh?), in a highly public setting.

A similar question, about whether castling is legal when the rook
involved is under attack, came up here a few weeks ago. I don't recall
any such incident involving Averbakh. You may be thinking of
Korchnoi-Karpov, Candidates Finals match, Moscow 1974, game 21:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.c4 Be7 6.Nc3 O-O 7.Qc2 c5 8.d5
exd5 9.Ng5 Nc6 10.Nxd5 g6 11.Qd2! Nxd5? 12.Bxd5 Rb8? 13.Nxh7! Re8
14.Qh6 Ne5 15.Ng5 Bxg5 16.Bxg5 Qxg5 17.Qxg5 Bxd5

The Rh1 is attacked by the Bd5. It was here, I believe, that Korchnoi
asked the arbiter if castling was legal. It is. The game proceeded:

18.O-O Bxc4 19.f4 [1:0]

Steve Grant wrote:
According to legend, neither did one of the well-known Soviet
grandmasters (Averbakh?), in a highly public setting.

I remember now, there was such an incident involving Averbakh. A
Google search shows it was mentioned here not long ago by a poster
named Terry ). He wrote:

Pages 38 and 39 in Chess Catechism. It quotes October 1960, Chess
World. The game was Averbach Vs Purdy. Purdy as Black castled
queenside. His Rook passed through the attacked b file. "Averbach
pointed out that Purdy's Rook had crossed an attacked square and
therefore castling was illegal. When Purdy proved the rule on this
point only applied to the King, Averbach exclaimed: 'Only the King? Not
the Rook?'"

It appears the game was Averbakh-Purdy, Australian Championship,
Adelaide 1960. Here is the score as given in the ChessBase Mega
Database 2005:

[Event "AUS-ch"]
[Site "Adelaide"]
[Date "1960.10.08"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Averbakh, Yuri L"]
[Black "Purdy, Cecil John Seddon"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A34"]
[PlyCount "95"]
[EventDate "1960.10.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "15"]
[EventCountry "AUS"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2002.11.25"]

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. g3 Nxc3 5. bxc3 c5 6. Bg2 Nc6 7.
Rb1 e5 8.
Qa4 Qc7 9. Bxc6+ Qxc6 10. Qxc6+ bxc6 11. Nf3 f6 12. d3 c4 13. dxc4 Be6
14. Nd2
O-O-O

This must be the move that surprised Averbakh. He assumed that with
his Rb1 attacking b8, Black could not castle.

15. Nb3 Bxc4 16. Be3 Rd7 17. f3 Be7 18. Kf2 c5 19. Na5 Ba6 20. Nc6 Bd6
21. Rhd1 Kc7 22. Nxa7 Ra8 23. Nb5+ Bxb5 24. Rxb5 Kc6 25. Rb2 Rda7 26.
Rdb1 Rxa2
27. Rb6+ Kc7 28. Rb7+ Kc8 29. Rxg7 R8a7 30. Rxa7 Rxa7 31. Rb5 Rc7 32.
c4 Kd7
33. Ra5 Kc6 34. Ra6+ Kd7 35. g4 Rb7 36. h4 Rb4 37. Ra7+ Ke6 38. Rxh7
Rxc4 39.
h5 Ra4 40. Rh8 Ra7 41. h6 Rc7 42. h7 Kd5 43. Bd2 Rd7 44. Ba5 c4 45. e4+
Kd4 46.
Rd8 Rxh7 47. Rxd6+ Kc5 48. Rxf6 1-0

Can you castle across a square attacked by a Knight?

Or is it only a line of check, like from a Queen, Rook, or Bishop that
you can not castle across?

Thanks!



The King may not castle through a square attacked by any piece, including
the knight (or pawn, for that matter). A rook can move through an attacked
square when castling.

I would strongly advise people to carry around a copy of the "official rules
of chess" for this situation, as that debate can get very heated.

One time in a coffeehouse some idiot with his girlfriend next to him was
playing me, told me I couldn't castle because I had BEEN IN check, I didn't
protest, castled by hand, then wiped him off the board in a half-dozen moves
after that anyway. He was ****ed.

Ray Gordon wrote:
One time in a coffeehouse some idiot with his girlfriend next to him was
playing me, told me I couldn't castle because I had BEEN IN check

That's a common misapprehension. I've no idea where it comes from.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Aquatic Pickled Boss (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a middle manager but it's preserved
in vinegar and it lives in the sea!