This is not true, and is a hoax by Tim Krabbe. The FIDE rules since their creation (1930s), included the condition that rook need to be on the same rank. Not to mention that the problems including vertical castling were published before fide existed. (and likely the reason FIDE included the same rank condition). TLDR: Krabbe had nothing to do with it.
That's right, but allegedly even Viktor Korchnoi was not sure about this detail once and had to ask the arbiter whether castling with an attacked rook is legal.
As the the other comment said, the King and Rook have to be both on their original squares etc., So this is a complete prank and was never possible. Also it doesn't matter if the Rook is attacked or a square that the Rook passes through is attacked to Castle.
The rook on e8 was moved ro e8, so castling contradicts the conditions for castling You yourself mentioned before. As consequence consider yourself fired.
@@UWE-s9q no, rook on e8 did not move since it is become rook and I did not invent this story from my bunda, this is a real story from chess history. :)
That's funny. But you have the conditions of castling a little bit wrong. You say that the opponent can't be attacking a square between the king and rook. That's not quite true. The opponent cannot be attacking the square the king crosses over. So, when O-O-O, a piece may be attacking b1, and castling is still legal.
Actually, I was wrong about that d5 pawn, since the king doesn't pass over e4, so that much is ok. However, Wikipedia rules state the rook and king must be on the same rank, so the move in the video is illegal.
Problem chess is another discipline alltogether, now one could argue that the piece did move, it just got promoted thats all, its not another piece tecnically so that should of settled the debate without a need to change the rules
This is not true, and is a hoax by Tim Krabbe.
The FIDE rules since their creation (1930s), included the condition that rook need to be on the same rank.
Not to mention that the problems including vertical castling were published before fide existed. (and likely the reason FIDE included the same rank condition).
TLDR: Krabbe had nothing to do with it.
It doesn't matter if the rook is attacked anyway. Only the king isn't allowed out of, through or into a check.
That's right, but allegedly even Viktor Korchnoi was not sure about this detail once and had to ask the arbiter whether castling with an attacked rook is legal.
@@sigmaoctantis5083 In a game 1995 with black against GM Kindermann, Korchnoi even castled short after 14. ... Rg8 and 21. ... Rh8.
You lighten up my day sir . FIDE CHANGED......... YOU TRIED TO SAY IT WITH A LIGHT MOOD FACE
well that's cleaver, I never knew that interesting
Let me add the fact, that according to Krabbé the notation of that castling is 0-0-0-0.
As the the other comment said, the King and Rook have to be both on their original squares etc., So this is a complete prank and was never possible.
Also it doesn't matter if the Rook is attacked or a square that the Rook passes through is attacked to Castle.
The rook on e8 was moved ro e8, so castling contradicts the conditions for castling You yourself mentioned before. As consequence consider yourself fired.
@@UWE-s9q no, rook on e8 did not move since it is become rook and I did not invent this story from my bunda, this is a real story from chess history. :)
That's funny. But you have the conditions of castling a little bit wrong. You say that the opponent can't be attacking a square between the king and rook. That's not quite true. The opponent cannot be attacking the square the king crosses over. So, when O-O-O, a piece may be attacking b1, and castling is still legal.
pawn on d5 attacks e4, hence no castling allowed under condition you have mentioned.
@@peterporter5742 if any piece doesn’t attack the squares which King passes by, then it’s allowed. D5 attacks e4, but king doesn’t pass e4 square
Isn't the pawn on d5 attacking the e4, so there is an attack on the path of the castling?
Yes, that was one of my thoughts as well, but FIDE didn’t consider that by then for some reason.
That doesnt apply to the rook, only the king.
If b1 is covered by the opponent then you can still castle long
In particular important if Black has a rook on b2, his king on d8, and the d-file is open. 😉
The d5 pawn is attacking the e4 square.
Actually, I was wrong about that d5 pawn, since the king doesn't pass over e4, so that much is ok. However, Wikipedia rules state the rook and king must be on the same rank, so the move in the video is illegal.
Yes, because FIDE ‘s changed the rule, that’s what I am saying in the video
what was the notation?
@@benjaminbritsch1749 most likely O-O-O-O-O lol
@@ChessA-Z
O-O-O-O-O-O might be more consistent, with the rook moving six squares.
@@MartinBerger
I think you' might be replying to the wrong comment.
Problem chess is another discipline alltogether, now one could argue that the piece did move, it just got promoted thats all, its not another piece tecnically so that should of settled the debate without a need to change the rules
Die Altbekannte Krabbenrochade :-)
O-O-O-O!
Shame it is forbidden.
that's amazing
silly
hilarious.
gamers know this well ... find a silly omission in the rules structure, and milk it.
Lol, Dutch are inventive;)
Half of the video is pitch black
I have no clue how is that happened, thanks for notifying me, fixed!
Boring.