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 ...
That only works in blitz time controls with no increment. If you accept games with no increment you are basically agreeing that flagging is part of the game and sportsmanlike. If you personally find it unsporting then always play with an increment and decline challenges with no increment.
It is not a question of ethics, but more about being courteous. Chess is a game where it is impossible to separate the joy of the game from the competitiveness/ego aspect so by declaring a forced win in N moves, you are effectively asking your opponent to resign immediately even though he hasn't seen the forced win yet owing to his lesser faculties/skill ...
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.
Yes. Besides making sense, it's also explicitly stated in the rules of the game:
The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king ...
In blitz, time is a major factor in the game, and it is fine to try and win on time.
If you used too much time, and your opponent thinks he can flag you, there is nothing wrong with that. It is part of the game.
Time is a resource in blitz chess, as much as or even more so than material. If it isn't unsportsmanlike to capture your opponent's material, how is it unsportsmanlike to capture their time?
In blitz chess, there is often a time-endgame. Otherwise pointless checks and random-looking moves are part of this endgame. From my perspective, this is part of what ...
Really interesting question. I think the following shows that such a situation is sort of possible, depending on how you define the pin:
[FEN "7k/4p3/8/2KP3r/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
and 2. dxe6 is illegal.
The check would go from being stopped by both pawns, to being stopped by neither.
Can a piece put a king in check even though moving that piece would be an illegal move?
One way to see why this makes sense is to imagine "checkless chess", a game that is just like chess, but you win by capturing the king, not by delivering checkmate, and no one is forced to move out of check. This game is exactly the same as chess except that it ...
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 ...
There are three ways to get out of check.
Simply move the king away.
Block the check, or place a piece in between the king and the opponent's attacking piece.
Capture the piece that's checking the king.
All of these cases are dependent on the fact that immediately after you make your move, the king is not in check. Therefore, you may capture the queen ...
In a tournament game, you are not supposed to speak at all other than to offer a draw or adjust a piece. This includes saying check. This tends to seep into casual games among more experienced players (I haven't said check in years).
For players that do not compete in tournaments at all, I don't think that there is any obligation to point it out.
Imagine a variation of chess without the rules about check and checkmate, where a player wins simply when he captures his opponent's king. In this variation, Kxd5 loses the game to exd5.
Turns out, that's more or less how real chess works. The objective is to capture the opponent's king. If your king is under attack, you must deal with that threat. If there'...
waste their time
If it's clear that they are able to win within the time they have left, this could be considered bad sportsmanship. However, in those situations the number of remaining checks is usually quite low.
win the game on time
If that's a possibility, I'd say it's perfectly fine to play on if you're losing on the board. At the beginning of the ...
Both recording checks and draw offers are personal preference, and neither is required in your notation.
I actually do record both checks as "+" or "++", and draw offers as "(d)". I know I am not the only one to note draw offers as I have friends, who do the same. I also record times.
The purpose of the notation is so you, or the arbiter, can play back ...
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 ...
Double check is a fine tactic. An example would be a bishop lined up on the same diagonal as the king with a rook or knight in the way blocking the check. The rook or knight moves giving check to the king and also uncovering the check from the bishop. The king must move since there is no way to block two different lines or take two different pieces at the ...
Here's a preliminary answer to where such a belief about chess pawns could possibly have come from. In the Japanese variant Shogi, in which an opponent's captured pieces may be placed onto the board as one's own, it is not legal to place down a pawn that gives immediate checkmate. It's still perfectly legal to drop a pawn that gives check though (and to ...
You can find some examples in the following game collection: Games where check is answered with checkmate.
Among those games, Nigel Short vs Alexander Morozevich, Russia - The Rest of the World (2002) is the only one that meets the qualification top players. This was a rapid game.
The most entertaining example is the following:
According to the FIDE Laws of Chess:
Appendix C. Algebraic notation
C.12 The offer of a draw shall be marked as (=)
As with a number of the laws regarding recording of the moves this is not strictly enforced by arbiters. I did once play in a tournament in which a very junior arbiter delivered a short harangue to us players telling us to record draw ...
You can move your other piece to make your queen attack the king in a normal position such as:
4r3/8/8/2QB1k2/p5q1/3K4/8/8 w - - 0 1
But you are forbidden to do so if the piece you move will put your own king in check, such as:
3r4/8/8/2QB1k2/p5q1/3K4/8/8 w - - 0 1
Here both ...
Those are just the rules of the game. You could absolutely try to make the case that moving into check in such a situation should be legal, but playing by those rules wouldn't be chess anymore (it would be some variant).
You could also ask why stalemate is a draw and not a win, even though the latter result would make more sense in a real battle. These are ...
I will answer from a different perspective: why Racing Kings (RK) has a rule to allow black a chance to draw, and why the same logic doesn't apply to chess.
What is Racing Kings (RK)?
Background for those unfamiliar with RK: Both sides start with all pieces (no pawns), arranged on the first 2 ranks of the chessboard, white on the right, black on the left. ...
There is a rules in chess called Threefold repetition rule. This rule states that you can claim a draw if you are about to repeat the the position for a third time. This subsumes a situation called perpetual check which also leads to a draw.
So what you did in your game wasn't a case of extortion or abusing a flaw in the game - it was completely by the ...
I would say this is not only insulting but unethical. Chess is a game that is intended to be a test of thought and concentration. It is unfair for a player to disrupt his opponents thought processes by drawing attention to any particular line of play as it may distract him from pursuing his intended strategy. Now you may think that the play is forced from ...
What you are describing is Perpetual Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_check
It is covered in the rules of chess and the result of such a game is a draw. It is up to your opponent to try and avoid this situation if he thinks he can win. Conversely, if you might lose you should try to get into some kind of draw situation to avoid a loss.
I have never heard this before... A pawn can check and also mate.