No, it's not JUST moving out of check. It's a special one time move that requires certain things. Really just emphasizes how king safety is a major priority over many other things
I mean it's perfectly logical. Castling is a special move that you only get to do once per game. You have to have your defenses set up in order to do it. It's a move for people who prepare, not to get out of jail free card
It was only done because it makes the game more dynamic. Castling can simply be imaged as a king sidestepping, then again. Just because its "special" doesnt mean it could still be just moving out of check.
No. It is mostly for game reasons and if you're trying to explain it like your imagining an actual war I guess that's your problem.
But putting somebody in check should always be a bonus for you. Allowing castling out of check basically just means you could hang out with your king and rook and then as soon as you get into check you get a development opportunity instead of being forced to lose the opportunity to take a powerful position like castling.
You'd have your opponent set up to attack the position where your king is at and then just move him way out of the way while giving yourself an attack piece in good position.
The way the rules are now you either have to be able to block for the king in order to keep your ability to castle or you move your king and lose the ability to castle. It makes an early check a good strategy rather than a trap that pulls you out of position.
If it were a rule people would adapt to it and not give what would then be a meaningless check. Checks don't always have to be rewarded. A bishop might block a check and pin the checking queen.
If you want to punish slow castling, do what the OPs post complains about: controlling squares between where the king must pass.
But me saying it makes the game more dynamic is the same as your "game reasons" and both prove my point: it was done for those reasons, not because its LOGICAL.
It also makes sense in terms of analogy with real world strategy. The king has to travel along a path to do so, using his castle as protection. You don't want him exposed to the enemy along the way
But en passant is a capture of an opponent's piece. Your king doesn't capture your took when it passes. Google "en passant king" for the actual move you're describing.
I mean it's a perfectly sensible rule. Castling is very powerful. It's important that there be a counterplay
And makes sense
But what does NOT make sense still is not being able to castle to safety when IN check. I mean its just moving out of check ffs.
The way I logic it is you can't move other random pieces if you're in check. Castling is also moving the rook, so it's a no no
King moves first then,since rook can go through.
No, it's not JUST moving out of check. It's a special one time move that requires certain things. Really just emphasizes how king safety is a major priority over many other things
Don't defend it logically cuz it ain't.
I mean it's perfectly logical. Castling is a special move that you only get to do once per game. You have to have your defenses set up in order to do it. It's a move for people who prepare, not to get out of jail free card
It was only done because it makes the game more dynamic. Castling can simply be imaged as a king sidestepping, then again. Just because its "special" doesnt mean it could still be just moving out of check.
No. It is mostly for game reasons and if you're trying to explain it like your imagining an actual war I guess that's your problem.
But putting somebody in check should always be a bonus for you. Allowing castling out of check basically just means you could hang out with your king and rook and then as soon as you get into check you get a development opportunity instead of being forced to lose the opportunity to take a powerful position like castling.
You'd have your opponent set up to attack the position where your king is at and then just move him way out of the way while giving yourself an attack piece in good position.
The way the rules are now you either have to be able to block for the king in order to keep your ability to castle or you move your king and lose the ability to castle. It makes an early check a good strategy rather than a trap that pulls you out of position.
If it were a rule people would adapt to it and not give what would then be a meaningless check. Checks don't always have to be rewarded. A bishop might block a check and pin the checking queen. If you want to punish slow castling, do what the OPs post complains about: controlling squares between where the king must pass.
But me saying it makes the game more dynamic is the same as your "game reasons" and both prove my point: it was done for those reasons, not because its LOGICAL.
The logic is that just like you can't move into check neither can your king pass over a square that would be in check
Castling is very powerful. It's important that there be a counterplay.
Kings a coward and cannot preform under stress.
It also makes sense in terms of analogy with real world strategy. The king has to travel along a path to do so, using his castle as protection. You don't want him exposed to the enemy along the way
Well if there was a sniper on you you wouldn't even come out of cover for a second
but if you are queen, bishop, knight or just building then it is ok
Because the sniper is too focused on the king
They're quick on their feet. That old bastard king can barely take one step before getting tired, he's an easy target.
Unless it's a photo op
Lost a game when I learned this doesn’t apply to the rook he’s castling with. I think that’s only relevant to long castle though
Edit: crazy how many snarky replies you get when you say you learned something lmao
I mean there's no rule against rooks being in check anyways? It's perfectly legal to blunder your rook in any position
I mean the rook can also pass through check too so.
https://preview.redd.it/7t4or3s9866g1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ed6e0e435e54daffa8902ce2ffffeb919a7dff20
What? You mean the rook is allowed to be in check?
What do you mean? Rooks can’t be in check they’re not the king…
Edit: why not explain instead of downvoting? I’m very confused
Knight holding check like
It's actually just en passant for the king
That's a brilliant way of thinking about it!!
But en passant is a capture of an opponent's piece. Your king doesn't capture your took when it passes. Google "en passant king" for the actual move you're describing.
Cant legally put the king in check, even if the opponent wouldnt “have time” to capture mid move
ehh, not being able to castle through check makes sense, the true insane castling rule is not being able to castle OUT of check
i got to know this rule today for the first time and I'm playing for years
True royalty simply walks.
I am happy that my chess.com app shows me that. And the en passaunt baguette.
We could all just collectively decide not to follow this rule anymore.
Who's going to stop us?
Well, either the king jumps or the rook jumps. There's not enough room on the squares for them to pass e/o.