From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chess (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


The page now has the sidebar on top of the diagrams. It didn't before. Can you fix it? -phma

I don't understand. Do you mean that the large bold "Castling (chess)" is above the diagrams? But I think it was above before I reformatted the table. Looking at previous versions shows it in the same position. --Fritzlein

Is the OOO notation the same in both types of chess notation?

Basically, yes, although in some very old game scores you find it spelled out in words ("Castles Q-Side"). --Camembert

In the line about it being allowed to castle if the rook is under attack, should the second part be "or move through an attacked square"? Rmhermen 17:07 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. --Fritzlein 19:23 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nunh-huh informs me that I am wrong to judge that "castle" is an incorrect term to use to refer to the rook. Therefore, I am putting his conclusion to the test -- if, as he claims, "castle" is no more incorrect or unacceptable than "rook", then replacing all the occurrences of "rook" with "castle" in this article should meet with no objections. Since I've changed all the terms at once, the terminology remains consistent throughout the article. It's no different than if I changed all occurences of the word "color" to "colour", or "quarter-note" to "crotchet". Anyone who objects to these changes has no right to change back, and if you think so, register your complaints elsewhere. Revolver 04:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course your little "experiment" will be reverted. I have never suggested that you replace anything: what I suggested (at Rook (chess)) is that you not label the use of "castle" as incorrect, since this use is found in every reasonably complete English language dictionary. You would be similarly taken to task, one hopes, if you were to opine that either "color" or "colour" is incorrect. You may find some thoughts of interest at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. - Nunh-huh
Yes, but an "experiment" that changed every instance of "color" to "colour" would NOT be reverted, and in fact, this has been done! (I.e., people have found it "necessary" to change "colour" to "color" or vice versa, and nothing was done to revert it.) The fact that my "experiment" WILL be reverted (by myself, incidentally), only DOES prove my point. (Namely, that this isn't the same thing as the color/colour debate, and that the dictionaries ARE wrong.) But, whatever. 06:23, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The a pawn[edit]

The article notes that in queen-side castling

the a pawn is undefended

This means that the pawn on the a-file is undefended. Since "the" and "a" are both English articles, this initially reads like a mistake. ("The a pawn is undefended? Is a pawn undefended, or is the pawn undefended?") Is there a common convention for avoiding confusion between "a" as the name of a Chess file and "a" as the English indefinite article? How about "the pawn on the A file" or "the pawn on the a-file"? Is there a Wikipedia standard about using Chess notation in English texts? Schoen 20:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I've changed that by listing the file. Bubba73 (talk), 02:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The simple solution is to write "the a-pawn".


I've reverted the latest edits about castling, which seemed to suggest that the rule (see #3.8) about not being able to castle out of check is only an "opinion". If it's in FIDE rules, then that's that - any other rules that people may play should be noted as exceptions, not equally valid alternatives. — sjorford++ 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Bubba73 (talk), 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed this: Castling out of check is chess move where the King castles to escape an attack by his opponent. According to most opinions, this move is not allowed, though the reason is not given. Most chess players don't know about this restriction, and many think it should be allowed., whuch was merged from its own article. The rules of standard chess do not allow you to castle if you are in check. This is a rule, not an "opinion". Bubba73 (talk), 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Note about squares under attack between castling pieces[edit]

I added a line about the king not being able to castle if the king would have to pass through squares that are under attack by enemy pieces James Strong 01:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone answer my question please?[edit]

For many years I was under the impression that one of the requirements for castling was that whether kingside or queenside when you castle; the last three pawns in either the A,B, and C files or F, G, and H depending which way you castle your king, must not have been moved past the 2nd or 7th rank respectively. However I a have discovered that the many sources I have checked from books to various websites does not state the pawn positions as a requiremnt. However I am occasionally introduced to carious diagrams that show those pawns in positions acting as barriers to the castles king. Is that just a coincidence or is that barrier of pawns actually a requirement? I hope someone has the answer to my question. Thank you in advance.

The barrier of pawns in not a requirement. However, you generally want those three pawns to be in their original position when you castle as the pawns give great protection to the king. It is often seen as a weakness to have any of the three pawns in front of your castled king to be moved from their original position as the hole(s) created by the moved pawn(s) allow the enemy to enter your castled position. James Strong 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, beware the back rank mate... Delirious prince 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
See "Luft" [[1]] with regard to preventing the back rank mate.WHPratt (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Requirements: Unknown reason?[edit]

4. The king may not pass through squares that are under attack by enemy pieces, and the king cannot be in check after castling. (A few players condone this if the king would end up on a safe square after the move. *Though the reason for this is unknown, this restriction is accepted by most official chess committees worldwide.*)

The reason for this rule is clearly explained in En-passant: "The idea behind en passant was that when the two-square first move for pawns was introduced to speed up the opening phase [...] The same principle can be seen in the rule that one cannot castle through check. Since a king ordinarily moves only one square at a time, he cannot move two squares at once, and thus renders himself vulnerable to being captured in passing through the first square. Since by the conventions of chess, a king is not allowed to put himself into check, so castling through check is not allowed."

Does this clarify? Maybe this should be included on the Castling page. -- Irfy 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually a more logical reason is that the rook will land on a square where it can be taken. So the requirement makes sense. The simple rule is that both the king and the rook must land on safe squares. What doesn't make sense is the ban on castling out of check. If the king is safe after castling, whether or not he's in check is totally irrelivant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
My fault, before I moved this note, it was in reference to the reason why you can't castle when the king is in check, not why you can't castle if the spaces between are in check (a rule I forget to restate in the requirements after I took it out from the clarifications, d'oh). At any rate, I think this is a fairly uncontroversial rule, so I'll remove the "unknown reason" bit.
And I forgot to sign, this just isn't my day. BrentG 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would posit that castling is intended to be an abbreviatory meant to expedite the game without drastically altering its course. In the common case where both sides castle early, this is more or less the result. If a defender were allowed to castle the king out of check or over an attacked square, castling would become an defensive maneuver that would not be achievable in its absence, thus changing the course of the early game.Mohanchous (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right. If a king in check was allowed to castle, it would mean that another square would have to be covered in order to checkmate a king that could castle. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 00:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Given all of the arguments raised here, and although it would involve a lot of diagrams, it might forestall questions if the first diagram under "Requirements" were duplicated with slight variations, so that a complete set were presented.

Diagram Req-1: [Show the rook on a1 under attack by a black piece -- probably a bishop at e5 or f6, as said piece must not control other first-rank squares.] Caption: "White may legally castle on the queenside, even though the rook at a1 is under attack. The castling rules do not restrict the rook in this manner."

Diagram Req-2: [Show the square b1 as controlled by black -- probably a bishop at f5 or g6, as said piece must not control other first-rank squares.] Caption: "White may legally castle on the queenside, even though the rook would pass over the opponent-controlled b1 square. The castling rules do not restrict the rook in this manner."

Diagram Req-3: [Show the square c1 as controlled by black.] Caption: "White may not castle on the queenside, as the king would be moving into a check on c1. A king is never permitted to move into a check."

Diagram Req-4: [Show the square d1 as controlled by black.] Caption: "White is not permitted to castle on the queenside, as the d1 square is controlled by the opponent, and the castling rules do not permit the king to move over a square so controlled."

Diagram Req-5: [Show the king on e1 in check.] Caption; "White may not castle on either side, as the castling rules prohibit castling while the king is in check."

Diagram Req-6: [Show the square f1 as controlled by black.] Caption: "White is not permitted to castle on the kingside, as the f1 square is controlled by the opponent, and the castling rules do not permit the king to move over a square so controlled."

Diagram Req-7: [Show the square g1 as controlled by black.] Caption: "White may not castle on the kingside, as the king would be moving into a check on g1. A king is never permitted to move into a check."

Diagram Req-8: [Show the rook on h1 under attack by a black piece.] Caption: "White may legally castle on the kingside, even though the rook at h1 is under attack. The castling rules do not restrict the rook in this manner."

As I noted in the first two examples, some care would have to be taken in selecting the black piece so as to avoid attacks on other first-rank squares that would rule out castling for reasons other than stated in the specific example. WHPratt (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

While this may be OK for a beginner book, I think it would be overkill in an encyclopedia. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rook after castling[edit]

Is it true that the rook cannot be under attack after castling in order for castling to work? -- Jordan 21:29, 7 August 2006

If the rook is under attack after castling, then the square it is on is a square the king moved over. Since the king is not allowed to pass through check, then castling would be prohibited in that situation.--Lkjhgfdsa 20:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What Lkjhgfdsa is indeed the official rule; however, players or local communities often use other conventions; e.g. allowing a king to castle even when passing through check, if 1) it is not moving out of check, 2) it is not moving into check, 3) the rook is not under attack before castling, 4) the rook is not under attack after castling. This would allow a Q-side castling even when the Q-Bishop square is under attack. I can attest that this was the norm where I come from, and I assumed this was standard until I grew up and learned otherwise. Of course, such "rules" vary from locality to locality and I merely added this as of anecdotal value. -- Nahum (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If the queen bishop square is under attack, queenside castling would put the king in check. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fix please[edit]

Rule #5 in the Requirements links to a footnote that already contradicts Rule #2. Any comments?? Georgia guy 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand the footnote it basically says that a pawn can be promoted to a rook once he has reached the other side. If he's in front of the King when he does this, the resulting Rook will not have moved, and thus technically Rule 2 would not forbid a vertical castle, across the board, to occur. Eboli 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Guess what??[edit]

I've just discovered an external link to a site on the German Wikipedia that has no equivalent in the English Wikipedia. Can anyone please create the English equivalent?? Georgia guy 00:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What equivalent?... WinterSpw 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect/duplicate requiremnt[edit]

I am deleting what was labeled requirement #7: The king and the rook must be on the same rank.

Of course the king and rook are on the same rank if neither has been yet moved, which is rule #1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

As the article explains, the problem is when you promote a pawn to a rook. That (new) rook has not yet moved. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-- nevermind, I just read the reference in the notes. That seems ridiculous though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
It is a little ridiculous, and confusing. We're just supposed to report what reliable sources say about the matter, though, and the FIDE rules, and the way they handle the issue, are the important source there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It's quite sad though. I mean, if you can actually make productive use of such an outrageous move, more power to you! 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It isn't happy or sad - it is a rule. Bubba73 (talk), 20:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

History of castling[edit]

The article could use a section on the history of the castling rule. The Oxford Companion to Chess has some useful material, and I think A History of Chess has even more detail. Italian free castling should be described, and then the mention of free castling in Serafino Dubois could be made into a link. Quale 09:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section based on Sunnucks' Encyclopedia. OTher sources may have more info that can be added. Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

taking and castling at the same time?[edit]

Say that there is an enemy knight next to the rook on the kingside. neither king nor rook have moved. Can the king castle, and take the piece? BillMasen 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You can find information in the article that will answer this question. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Summarily, no you can't. WinterSpw 23:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Under "Requirements": 3. There must be no pieces between the king and the chosen rook. -- Jao 09:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous rule[edit]

Rule 7 for castling states "The king and the chosen rook must be on the same rank." If neither the rook nor the king have moved, then they are certainly on the same rank. Why does this need to be stated, then? hgilbert (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That is one of the rules. Read the footnote attached to it for the reason. Bubba73 (talk), 00:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Although the point is moot, since FIDE added the extra rule, I agree with hgilbert about the superfluity. The case that Krabbe points out (vertical castling) is surely covered by a reasonable reading of rule 2: the new-formed rook has moved during the game, albeit in the form of a pawn. If they wished to eliminate all possible ambiguity, they could have simply rephrased rule 2 to say that both the rook and King must have occupied their current locations since the beginning of the game.JudahH (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it was a different piece when it was a pawn. And obviously the FIDE rules committee did not think so either. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why was Castling implemented in the first place?[edit]

The article explains where and when does Castling come from but nowhere can I find why chess players of 500 years ago found out the need for such a rule. Does anybody know? Not only when it was invented, but also why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Bubba73 (talk), 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Is this seriously necessary?

"0-0" redirects here. For the reference to someone who wears glasses (0-0), see emoticon.

Do you think a lot of people search for "0-0" expecting to find glasses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

0-0 is accessed a few times per day, on average. Some of them are probably looking for the emoticon, so I think it should either be here or 0-0 should be a disambig page. Bubba73 (talk), 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, i made it a disambig page, like 0-0-0. Bubba73 (talk), 20:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Following simple analytical logic, Tim Krabbe used "O-O-O-O-O-O" to denote the "vertical castling" in his infamous problem. He had the king move the usual two squares towards the promoted rook, and this rook had to traverse six squares to jump the king and deliver a checkmate from the e2 square.WHPratt (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Added: I remember seeing Krabbe's outrageous "problem" in Chess Review back in the early 1970s, and he seemed to think that it would have been legal. I wonder if the "same rank" codicil was "always" there, or whether it may have been added in response to someone concocting this scenario. Some research would be appropriate. WHPratt (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It was legal at the time, according to a strict application of the rules. In fact, FIDE changed the rules as a result! See footnote #2 in the article.Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Debatable: arguably, a Rook that began life as a pawn has "previously moved". Still, it made sense to revise the rules to remove all ambiguity. JudahH (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but the rook has not moved. FIDE realized that there was a loophole in the rules so they changed it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's why I said debatable: the debate would revolve around whether moves made in a previous life are attributable to the pawn-cum-Rook. I have little doubt that had a move like Krabbe's been attempted in an actual tournament game, said debate would have ensued. No argument that FIDE revised the rules to eliminate this as a possible loophole. JudahH (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, Krabbé's interpretation of how to castle with a promoted rook on e8 is only one possibility. You could interpret the rule as "if there are an odd number of spaces between the king and the rook, the king lands on the middle one and the rook next to it on the other side; if there are an even number, the king lands just after the middle", and so the king would end up on e5 and the rook on e4! (Not very safe, isn't it? This is the interpretation used in Betza's Castlingmost Chess.) Double sharp (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. The rule has been that the king rook cannot have moved. If either was on any square e2 to e7, it would have moved. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I mean Krabbé's vertical castling with an e8-rook. He has the king end up on e3 and the promoted rook end up on e2; I think it would also make sense for the king to end up on e5 and the promoted rook on e4. Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The rule says to move the king two squares and the rook goes on the other side. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Strategy[edit]

Quote: " ... it moves the king into a safer position away from the center of the board, and it moves the rook to a more active position in the center of the board (it is possible even to checkmate with castling."

I don't recall any top-level game in which castling delivered checkmate, but the article could reference the article on Edward Lasker [[2]], section "Notable games." In his famous game against Sir George Thomas, Edward Lasker sacrifices his queen, then drives Thomas' king to the opposite side of the board. He delivers a checkmate by shifting his own king to the second rank, discovering check from a rook. But he could have just as easily castled to end the game. WHPratt (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See Lawrence Day for a link to just such a finish. Captain Pedant (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I've added it to the article. Bubba73 (talk), 22:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a dramatic chess game in Edgar Ulmer's film, The Black Cat (1934). We don't get any close views of the play, but it appears that Poelzig (Boris Karloff) defeats Werdegast (Bela Lugosi) by moving two pieces at the same time. I.e., he presumably delivers the final stroke via castling. WHPratt (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I wish he had castled!!! Bubba73 (talk), 17:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Castling on opposite sides[edit]

Redircted Castling on opposite sides here. Section to be created. SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What can the king do after castling??[edit]

I've read this article, and I can't seem to find (other than in the history) what the king can now do. I remember playing it that the king can move 2 squares once. In the history of castling section, it says "the king can now move two squares or a knights move" but does that still apply, and for how many moves can the king do this? androo123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the question. These special moves were precursors of castling; the current castling move superseded them so they are no longer legal. As for what happens after castling, there are no special provisions. The king moves after castling in exactly the same way it did before castling (except that, for obvious reasons, it cannot castle again). —JAOTC 18:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
After castling the king can make any legal move. Castling again is not a legal move. The other thing in "history" don't apply now. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Other languages[edit]

Castling is in most non-English speaking nations known as 'Rochieren/Rochada/Roque'. That seems to be German, Spanish (?) and French -- just three languages, hardly "most". Unless the intent was to say that most languages use a similar word. Even if so, I somewhat doubt it. (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I fixed this. But it is a fact that quite a few languages use a similar word, just check the interwiki links. -- (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Diagrams in Error[edit]

The diagrams seem to be messed up. In the first two, the white pieces are shifted one file to the right.WHPratt (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Something is wrong - when I edit them, they look OK but the first rank is shifted one square, as you say. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

Castling (2nd definition)

(n.) That which is cast or brought forth prematurely; an abortion.

Just in case someone looks (like I did) for this meaning rather than the Chess one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahum (talkcontribs) 10:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why 0-0 and 0-0-0?[edit]

Is there any reason for the 0-0 notation other than "have to call it something"? -- (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any reason. In old literature it was written as "castles" or "castles queenside". 0-0 is short and not likely to be confused with anything else. I think initially that 0-0 was used for both sides. Perhaps O-O symbolizes exchanging the two pieces, but I am just speculating. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I've wondered the history of this notation myself. To help my students remember the difference, I tell them that the number of 0's (or O's) is same as the number of squares between the King and Rook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It is also the number of squares that the rook moves. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


Article: "It is a common mistake to think that the requirements for castling are even more stringent than the above. To clarify: 1. The king may have been in check previously, as long as it is not in check at the time of castling. " ...

In keeping with a policy of overkill (which makes sense in an encyclopedia), I'd suggest adding . . .

"1. The king may have been in check previously, as long as it is not in check at the time of castling. (Obviously, this check must have been resolved by means other than moving the king.)"

Just to clarify that an early check doesn't rule out castling unless the king is moved in response. WHPratt (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that is too much because it is stated earlier that the king cannot have moved previously. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did admit that it was overkill to the second or third degree, but there's a lot of that here. ;) WHPratt (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
At one time someone (at the chess article I think, or the chess project talk page) objected to the whole "It is a common mistake to think that the requirements for castling are even more stringent..." part, but the "notable castelings" shows some examples where world-class players had such misconceptions. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Castling to get out of check[edit]

There is a dispute whether or not you can castle out of check on this article. I think we need to take a vote as to whether it should be legal or not. I doubt the inventors of castling would make this move so confusing. (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  • It isn't up for us to vote whether or not it should be legal to castle while in check - it is illegal (see any rulebook). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I would agree too, it doesn't make sense at all. The rules of chess aren't etched in stone, you know. (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC), you're welcome to promote your own variant version of chess, one that allows this particular move (or anything else, for that matter). You may even persuade a number of people to play it. But you'd have to win over literal millions of traditional chess players to make your version "official." WHPratt (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. It gives the actual rule, not what some people wish it was (or incorrectly think it is). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Edits claiming that it is legal in chess to castle out of check are vandalism and can be reverted on sight without running afoul of WP:3RR. Making those bad edits to insert false information in the article is subject to WP:3RR so the anon is risking being blocked. Quale (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You cannot castle out of check. Just try it in any modern chess computer and you'll see it's not allowed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Or play a game online - they probably enforce the rules too. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Or just google it. Of course as has been pointed out before the definitive answer to this question is provided by FIDE Laws of Chess which state "(2) Castling is prevented temporarily: if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces" (emphasis mine). None of this matters because I think we're just being trolled. Quale (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Contrary to what the anonymous user who started this section seems to think, Wikipedia does not work by voting. However, if that user wishes to think of this as a vote then there is clearly a majority in favour of this. There is clearly a solid consensus here in favour of sticking to the actual rule, not what that user thinks it ought to be. In addition, there is a reliable source (the FIDE laws of chess) which supports this, and no reliable source which supports the other view. Consensus and reliable sources are what Wikipedia uses to settle disagreements about content, and both of them support the same decision. It is therefore unacceptable to continue to edit war to maintain the non-standard interpretation, and anyone who does so can expect to be blocked. Two of the IPs used by the editor who started this have been temporarily blocked, and the article has been semiprotected. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • So some is disputing a rule whats all the fuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
    • Because it is indisputable that the rule is that you can't castle when in check. The IP users want to use Wikipedia as a blog to say they don't like the rule. Wikipedia is not a blog - it is an encyclopedia that should state what the rule actually is. And Wikipedia article talk pages are for improving the article - not a forum for saying you don't like the rule. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Get real, if the king is safe once you're done castling is ought to be okay, why make it more complicated then it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

  • We don't make the rules. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Did anyone ever write to whoever does ask why this rules exists to begin with or why it should even exist? (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this question. Are you asking about writing to the people who made the rule? I think they died hundreds of years ago. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I think this is a good debate. It really doesn't make any sense that being in check blocks castling, since the rules do state you have to get the king to safety if it's attacked. The important thing is whether or not the King lands on an attacked square, not whether or not the King is being attacked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Okay, what is this talk page for anyway?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:23, 22 April 2011

A talk page "is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page". You can read further detail at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that it's legitimate, and possibly useful for a reader to speak up when some rule seems to violate common sense as he or she sees it. This suggests that the article may be improved -- that's the whole idea -- by pre-emptively addressing the point in the 'historical' section. It should be obvious that for the widespread acceptance of rules introduced later in the game's development -- like en passant and castling -- these had to be implemented with a host of restrictions to assure the traditionalist that his favorite game wasn't careening towards some unpleasant place in a handbasket. "Note that everybody uses five or six moves to tuck away his king in the corner. We can speed things up just a bit by allowing this particular move. However, you still have to prepare properly to use it. It's a reward for careful development, not a device to get a bad player out of a crisis." That has a chance to win acceptance. It's certainly better than "How about letting the king do this? Don't worry, nobody's going to exploit the privilege." I think that was the philosophy in play at the time. New rules for an entrenched structure will have to be conservative. Now, I'm not sure exactly how to work that into the text, but I suspect there's a way. WHPratt (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The IP editors were not questioning why the rule is as it is - they were insisting that it isn't that way. I've been researching the rule and its history and I haven't come up with anything. As far as I can tell, the restrictions have always been there, i.e. I haven't found any mention of them being added. The restriction about the king and rook not having previously moved is in the same category. What I surmise is that castling was considered a special privilege so they felt that restrictions could be put on it. So I haven't found anything about those restrictions or their history to add to the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea that it's legitimate or useful to spam the talk page the way that the anons have. Keep in mind that their antics aren't confined to the talk page, they also damage the articles and edit war to try to include false claims, frequently poorly written and ungrammatical as well. In my view it's a waste of time and is just trolling. There is a small amount of information available on the development and adoption of the modern rules, but I haven't seen a lot. It wasn't until the time of Staunton that all current rules were accepted nearly universally. Rules are essentially arbitrary when it comes right down to it. You might just as well ask why pawns can't move backwards when every other piece can. I don't think there's any reason for it, it's just the way it is. Q. Why can't you castle out of check in chess? A. Because that's the rule. If you could castle out of check it would be a different game, and not chess. Quale (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

the rules of chess have changed over the years so what is everyone balking at this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the rule has been the same since the 17th century. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
If any classic board game's rules lend themselves to change, then i'd say either write to the game's committe or just agree with your oppnenet it's legal. the only significant square that should permit or forbid castling the king's final square. when you get out of check you look for a safe suqare to move to and one that isn't occupied by a friendly piece. so this really seems illogical to me as an amateur and therefore i voice my opposition. (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not the place to voice your opposition. Here we report what the rule really is. I think modern castling goes back to at least 1620 and the forerunner of that was the king's leap. Some 1560 rules state that it can't be done while in check.

Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a talk page and i have to right to ask questions like you do. the basis is that the rule should be simplified. why should all three squares (the starting square, the second square and the final square be safe when all you need is one safe square? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
The talk pages of articles are for discussing improvements to the article. You can ask questions on the help pages. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As inappropriate as this discussion is for the talk page, I would claim that the current rules are actually very logical. Castling, like the pawn's initial double step, is a case of making two moves at once. Therefore you can't castle through check as your king would be taken en passant. As for castling when you are in check, it makes sense that such a powerful ability such as doublemoving (castling in this case) would be severely restricted. Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As I suggested earlier in this talk section, the new rules like en passant and castling must have horrified many traditionalists. Some compromising restraints would have to be put in place for the rules to gain acceptance. hence "severely restricted." WHPratt (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
A possible rationalization regarding castling out of check is that castling takes a long time to perform and thus cannot be done in an emergency (when the king is under attack). Double sharp (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

chess castling[edit]

is queenside castling possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, I wonder! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it means castling with the queen? If that's what you mean, then no. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it means castling with the a-file rook instead of the h-file rook. That is possible. Double sharp (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference for 'common mistake'[edit]

Added a reference for the 'common mistake' line in the Requirements section. In general, is a single example enough? I think, from my own experience, that being unsure about whether you can castle when the rook is threatened is fairly common, but I realise that's not exactly referable... NJHartley (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Even Yuri Averbakh failed to know that once (in the article). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)