New answers tagged castling
0
Bad question.
You have no attack, especially on the king.
Castle 0-0 and get on with the game positionally.
There is not enough material to do any attacking especially the king.
Castle long and White will have the attacking chances such as they are.
You are a pawn up but with bishops of opposite colors. This will be hard to win no matter what you do.
-1
Logical fallacy.
Assumes the consequence.
It may be good and it may not.
I have mated many opponents who had a fianchettoed B in front of their king.
0
For a player like you it is irrelevant.
What matters is the actual position not your player 'type'.
You castle opposite because your king would be safer.
Or because you will have an endgame edge due to king position in a game that is not going to be decided by an attack.
Less often you do it to gain a tempo. I have castled long to check the black king on ...
2
I'd question whether its "advantageous" to castle on the same side as your opponent. Often it's safer, but that's not always the case and even so "safer" does not mean "advantageous." Remember, when you castle on the same side as your opponent, that means they've also castled on the same side as you; it can't be "advantageous" for both of you at the same ...
0
What dilemma?
You castle because there are NO other moves that are pressing.
You castle because you have a need to unite your rooks and/or put you king in a safer location.
You castle because it is the best move in that position.
You do not castle to put a check in some box on a list.
Your opponent has been putting his pieces on the best squares, not ...
1
Let's ignore the whole "fight" aspect for now and consider why we castle in the first place. The key advantage of castling is that you 1) bring your rook to the center, and (more importantly) 2) get your king to safety. Exceptions apply of course, but usually, you're looking to castle on the side where the opponent isn't going to attack.
The other thing to ...
3
You may have been in a fight or not. Top players do not fight that way they make the moves best for their position. Sometimes they delay castling but not to fight the opponent.
This seems to be a tactic used by weaker players who might want to mount an attack on the other king. The position should decide whether that is the best strategy or not.
Not ...
1
There is more on the condition to consider
The King and Rook have to be on the same rank, otherwise Pam-Krabbe castling would be possible.
Pam-Krabbe castling is basically a vertical castling, where the king would castle with a promoted pawn. This is not allowed anymore.
3
You have found out all relevant rules, which are the Laws of Chess, including Guideline II. As expected, the wording of the rules seems not to cover that case. In Guideline II, some special cases of castling are considered, but not this one, so Article 3 applies. Article 3 deals with regular chess, and in regular chess your case simply is not possible. Your ...
5
One way out of this would be to invoke article 3.9.2 of the FIDE Laws:
No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.
Yep, that seems entirely unambiguous to me. You can't leave your king in check after your move. (Your objection seems to be predicated on the idea that a move that ...
2
I can’t see the diagrams on mobile, but having read
or the square which it is to occupy
and
the white king ends in check on c1
I would say FIDE covers the scenario: the square which the king is to occupy is attacked if the king would end in check, no?
Or is the issue that the unique 960 arrangement means that the rook previously blocked the check ...
6
Hi thanks for your questions Remellion. I have a better answer for Q2 than Q1, but bottom line there is no loophole in the FIDE Laws.
(1) I don't know of and can't locate any other official source of Chess960 rules other than FIDE rules.
(2) There is a second place in the FIDE rules where we are told how naughty it is to leave a king in check:
FIDE Law ...
Top 50 recent answers are included
