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 ...
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.
In the specific position that you mention, the answer is a resounding no. The king and the knight will defend each other, and white will not be able to force mate.
However, the knight is a clumsy piece. If the knight is not positioned perfectly, then the rook will frequently be able to drive the knight to a bad square and deprive it of moves. Eventually, ...
I know you're a FIDE Master :), so I suppose you're more interested in this question from a teaching perspective.
The simplest way to understand a checkmate with King and Rook vs King is the idea of the rectangle of the opposing king. Consider this position-
Here, the Black King is restricted by the White Rook in this giant rectangular area of the ...
Rooks are more suitable for open games where there are open lines. Knight are better for more closed games. Knights have the benefit of jumping over other pieces and rooks have the ability to move quickly whereas knights move very slowly.
Also, remember that you can't checkmate with just a Knight and King, so Rooks are probably more powerful in the endgame ...
The weaker side needs to keep Knight close to his King in order to achieve draw.
There are some special cases where the stronger side wins even in those situations, like when Knight is cornered or pinned in such a way that puts weaker side in zugzwang.
If the Knight is far away from the King then the result of the game depends whether or not the defending ...
That's actually not very surprising. In many openings, the rooks don't participate until fairly deep into the middlegame. You touch on the reason in your question - the rooks have to wait until all the other pieces are out of the way in order to develop.
The specific strategy for rook development will depend on the position, but generally speaking, the ...
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 ...
In the diagrammed position you have a material advantage but Black's position is a little bit better because his rooks are connected and he has a safer king position. His immediate threat is RxR, when you have to retake with the king followed by Qg1+ and after you move Kd2 he will play Bb6 and the pressure around your king will become intense. You are paying ...
There is always a situation where one piece can be better than another.
Rooks are superior to knights because they control more squares, and have more mobility. Also since they control whole ranks and files, they are able to bound the enemy pieces while knights and bishops are much more limited in that regard.
There are several key positions from which it is easy to memorize the win. The basic idea is to drive the opposing king to the edge of the board, and then to the corner, where you can force the rook to separate from the king.
[White "King and Queen"]
[Black "King and Rook"]
Examples and instructions are taken from the book:
Y.Averbakh - Comprehensive Chess Endings Volume 3.
In many cases I felt no need to "reinvent the wheel" so I quoted the above authors. Those parts will be marked with apostrophes "", like this: "This is a quoted text".
Without further delay let us tackle this endgame:
"In endings of ...
There are a few technical ways to approach this endgame, the most notable one being a Philidor's Position (the KQ vs. KR one, not the KRP vs. KR one or the KRB vs. KR one).
If you do a web search for 3rd or 4th rank defense, you should be able to find more complicated situations outlining ideas for how the defensive position can try to put up a fight while ...
Like its cousin endgame KRBvKR, your ending of KRNvKR is usually drawn. It's not always drawn, of course, but generally speaking KRNvKR is much less dangerous and easier to defend than is KRBvKR. In Secrets of Pawnless Endings, John Nunn writes,
If the defending king is not in a corner there are a few situations when the rook and knight can win tactically ...
Brian Towers' answer is excellent. I'll just add this: if you play Rxe8, you are effectively trading your e1-rook for your opponent's a8-rook. A glance at the position should show that your e1-rook is a lot more valuable than your opponent's a8-rook. It is currently already developed and participating in the game, while the a8-rook (like your a1-rook) is ...
If you have two rooks, standing on different files (one of them on the d-file), that could capture on d2, then Rdxd2 is the correct notation.
If you have two rooks on the d-file, and both can take on d2, then use the rank number to disambiguate, for instance R1xd2.
This is according to the Algebraic System required by FIDE's Laws of Chess (see appendix C, ...
In "Chess Fundamentals," former world champion J. R. Capablanca noted that this was the hardest of the basic piece-only endgames to win.
His analysis was that the stronger side can win if it can force the rook away from the king, with double threats of checkmating the king, and forking rook and king. If the defending side can keep the rook near the king ...
You need to understand that the point system is only a rough guideline meant to assist you in evaluating positions or in deciding on potential exchanges. Many factors, particularly the pawn structure, influences how valuable pieces are. Rooks tend to be better in open positions with fewer pieces/pawns on the board, bishops can get hindered in closed ...
You wouldn't want to place the rook in front of the queen at b4. Because it can be captured by the pawn on a5.
Even if you do want to, you can't move the rook in front of the queen (or anywhere else), because it is pinned to your king by the queen.
It's fortunate that Rb4 was an illegal move, because it would have been a big mistake.
You should, instead, ...
In analyzing and studying this endgame, I believe I have found a very simple way to explain the defensive technique (for this example, we will consider the defender to be Black). Once I learned this technique, I played some blitz Rook vs Knight endgames vs top chess programs and drew all of them.
I found it useful to visualize the technique ...
I agree with Xaisoft, and just want to add that in an open game, a rook can be very effective to reduce the opponent's pawns and keep the opponent's king "in place". While it is true that knights can be mobile in a close game, they are also very predictable. That being said, personally I'd be happy to see an opponent lose both of his/her knights.
One way NOT to develop rooks in the opening is via something like
I (a duffer) played a series of twenty or so games against someone who insisted on opening like this. He never won a game against me.
Best advice is to follow the common wisdom that rooks are usually developed last.
As long as we're mentioning ways the player with the rook can draw, the following is a very common setup in endgame puzzle books:
[fen "8/8/8/8/8/2QK4/8/3kr3 b - - 0 1"]
Black to move and draw
This is a losing position for White. Normally, trading for a queen against two rooks is reasonable but Black has an extra knight here...
The best objective move sequence would be:
1.Qxe8 Rxe8 2.Rxe8+ Kf7 3.Re2 Qb6+
White's position after 3...Qb6+ is absolutely hopeless - the rooks have no useful squares. White has no counterplay, no attacks, no chance for ...
You say your opponent had a strong attack against your king and you had to "sacrifice" your rook for two minor pieces and went on to lose. I think you have it the wrong way round. It sounds like your opponent had a strong attack against your king and sacrificed two minor pieces for your rook, your one active piece by the sound of it.
In general a rook and ...
If anything, it would be advisable to trade one's queen for the opponent's rooks, not vice versa. But it all depends on the position. If my opponent's queen is particularly useful to him and dangerous to me, and my rooks haven't been well developed, especially if I'm already ahead in material, I wouldn't hesitate to exchange my rooks for the queen.