Yes, you can, as long as the king doesn't pass through or end up on an attacked square.
From FIDE Laws of Chess:
The right to castle has been lost:
if the king has already moved, or
with a rook that has already moved.
Castling is prevented temporarily:
if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or ...
The official procedure to castle is (Schiller 2003:19–20 from Wikipedia):
first move the king with one hand and then move the rook with the same hand.
By using both hands the player can save time, as would by as using different hands for moving (like promoting a pawn to queen) or moving with a hand and hitting the clock with the other.
Disclaimer: this is probably not the answer, but it makes for interesting thinking.
This reminds me of a string bet in poker. String bets are illegal, because they can be used to gain information – “I’ll see your $5”… < watches opponent’s face> "… and raise you $20”.
By moving the king first, you are making what would otherwise be ...
Yes, if the rook is threatened, you may still castle. The threatened squares rule only applies to squares where the king passes (starting and final position included).
For example, in the case of white castling queenside, for instance, a threat to a1 or b1 does not prevent the castle from taking place.
Black actually can castle, but if he does castle he will lose the knight and the game (due to material loss).
Black and White have equal material.
The black knight is protected by two pieces: the king and the queen.
The black knight is attacked by two pieces: the queen and rook.
If the king castles, the knight will ...
I know in general the rules say the hand you move your piece with has to be the one that hits the clock. If you castled with two hands which one would you use to hit the clock? This might be part of the reason for the rule saying you can only castle with 1 hand.
Castling is extremely useful in almost all games. It lets you do two things at once. First, it moves your king from the center to the side of the board, where it is much more difficult to attack for the opponent. Second, it brings one of your rooks towards the center of the board, and it crucial in bringing both of your rook into the game.
There may be a ...
If you are prepared to use standard Linux command-line tools like wc and grep then I think my free PGN processor, pgn-extract, will do much of the pre-processing necessary to count games in each category. Below is a basic bash script I put together as a proof of concept. It assumes your file of games is called inputfile.pgn - adjust as necessary, or pass it ...
Chess rules are all about sequence. If you use two hands, you don't know which happened first. So you always use one hand. First, you make your move, then you hit the clock.
As others have pointed out, the rook move alone could be one or two moves. Maybe, you were just moving your rook, maybe you were castling. The King move, however, does determine ...
It's very difficult to answer without a specific position, but here are a few general thoughts:
It is almost always faster to castle kingside because only two pieces need to be moved out of the way, and those two pieces have very natural squares (Nf3, Bb5/c4/e2).
The kingside pawns are usually left on their starting squares so the king is usually ...
One nice example of this is in this game, where a player named Feuer takes advantage of the ability to castle queenside while b1 is attacked to play a beautiful combination.
[Event "Belgian Championship"]
[Site "Liege BEL"]
[White "Otto Feuer"]
[Black "Alberic O'Kelly de Galway"]
I can think of two questions you might be meaning to ask, given the wording of your question. Maybe neither of these is what you're after, but just in case:
1. Is it possible to castle out of check or even checkmate? Here the answer is no. If your king is in check, then castling is not a legal move.
2. Is it possible to castle while checkmating your ...
One rationale that I can think of for not allowing the king to move through check parallels that behind the possibility of capturing en passant after a pawn makes a two-square advance.
The typical pawn move is just a single square forward, and the possibility of advancing two squares on a pawn's first move was a relatively late addition to the game in ...
The rules are that the king can't castle into check, through check, or when in check. This applies to the king's square, plus the two squares to the right or left.
Castling is permitted when the rook is under attack (on the rook's square). On the queen side, that would also include the knight's square. But not on the kingside, because the king would be ...
It'll depend on the rest of the position.
If it's relatively open, chances are you can keep the opponent's king in the center and launch an attack. This might well be a decisive advantage; preventing castling on both sides can be much harder than just one side or none at all. It's worth noting that 'artificial' castling (e.g. Ke8-f7, Rh8-e8 and Kf7-g8) ...
Unless this is a trick question, I'd say never:
3.8.2  This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the ...
The answer is plain and simple: You cannot castle twice without breaking the rules. The only chance for this thing to happen is that the illegal move (the second castling) stays unnoticed until the game is ended with an accepted outcome.
Fianchettoes are a very common and strong setup. But watch also for the 2 most common attacks against a fianchettoed position, which are:
A. Launching the rook pawn up the board (against Black this would be h4-h5 etc.) and opening up the h-file. I have played this many times against the Pirc where Black "castles into" the attack. White plays h4-h5 followed ...
I think you outline the balance well, that is what it is. You are talking about attempting to misdirect an opponent. In any game, misdirection is a dangerous tactic that takes skill to know when to make your move.
If you can get to know your opponent you can try to judge how they will move on you. If you are dead set on castling to a particular side, and ...
The answer is twofold - learn your opening theory, and learn how to defend.
If you can defend yourself against the attack, then you're not "castling into the attack", you're simply castling. Of course, you could be wrong, and castling could be a mistake, but that's chess - you have to make trade-offs, trust your instincts, and calculate the position.
The FIDE Laws of Chess actually cover this with a recommendation without mentioning the problem.
II.22.214.171.124 When castling on a physical board with a human player, it
is recommended that the king be moved outside the playing surface next
to his final position, the rook then be moved from its starting
position to its final position, and then the king ...
why is it illegal to castle with both hands?
Because the rules say so.
From the FIDE Laws of Chess -
7.5.4 If a player uses two hands to make a single move (for example in case of castling, capturing or promotion) and pressed the clock, it
shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.
Weaknesses like doubled/tripled pawn structure, color complex holes, and right to castle only matter in chess to the extent to which the opponent can exploit them. In the Old Indian variation you gave above, yes, Black lost the right to castle, but is White in any real position to exploit it? The answer is no. In fact, Black's king is very safe after he ...
Can you try answering why are you trying to prevent your opponent from castling?
When you think about this more - you realize that castling prevention is just a tactical weapon, nothing more. Of course you can win a game if you are good at tactics, if your opponent makes mistakes, but, to quote Alekhine:
"It took me many years to get rid of the bias ...
The way I always understood castling is that it allows the player to move his king to safety. But this privilege does not come for free - it comes at the cost of a tempo. If a player was allowed to castle out of check, or over a checked square, then it allows him to postpone this powerful move until the very latest, effectively removing the penalty from the ...
A basic rule (and not just in chess): options are good. Suppose your opponent has the option of castling. If they are in a position where castling is good, they will do so. If they are in a situation where it's bad, they won't (presumably, and you should be wary of planning your strategy around your opponent making mistakes). So unless there's absolutely no ...
I have no real preference either way, but I'll point out that Kramnik based his argument on AlphaZero playing against itself. Because of AlphaZero's style, it might not be the case that these no-castling games end up in complicated positions more often.
Here're two more games to add using the no-castling rule, played in the TCEC viewer-submitted opening ...