|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-28-05
 | | Gypsy: <if he could castle when his rook was being attacked on its destination square> You probably ment on its origination square, didn't you? Another "tricky" case is whether White (Black) can castle O-O-O when b1 (b8) is under attack. (Yes, they can.) Regarding the embarasment: I bet Korchnoy just found it all amusing, rather than embarasing. |
 |
Jan-28-05
 | | Ken MacGillivray: <Shams> i can tell you for certain Averbakh did indeed claim black could not castle on his 14th move. Purdy wrote an article about this particular incident; Averbakh could speak no English, and Purdy could not speak Russian, but Purdy by moving pieces on the chess board, and using body signs and facial expressions, was able to convince Averbakh of the legitimacy of his move. It might seem amazing that i can remember the details of an article I read more than 40 years ago, when in truth I forget something i read 2 days ago. But it was just so incredible, that a famous grand master and chess writer of Averbakh's standing didn't know all of the rules pertaining to castling, and this is the sort of thing you don't forget. |
|
| Jan-28-05 | | euripides: If the rook were attacked on its destination square then the king would be crossing an attacked square and that would be illegal. Korchonoy's uncertainty must have been about the rook's square of origin or the square crossed by the rook. |
|
| Jan-28-05 | | RisingChamp: No the rook on h1 was attacked by Karpovs bishop on d5 after 0-0 the king is on g1. I also myself saw a comnbination of mine,where i was threatening qxh8 and re1 pinning blacks queen on e6 simultaneously fail to the unexpected 0-0-0 which my opponent discovered only after 30 minutes thought(it was drawn). |
|
Jan-29-05
 | | Benzol: Since this game keeps getting mention here's the link
Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1974
Korchnoi asked the arbiter if he could legally castle when his rook was attacked. He talks about this incident in "Chess Is My Life". |
|
May-10-05
| | Benzol: An interesting question cropped up at my club last week. We are currently playing a handicap tournament and one player was playing without his Queen's Rook. During the game he asked me if he could castle by just moving his King since he didn't have the Rook.
I didn't know the answer and was left wondering the same thing. Does anyone know? |
|
| May-10-05 | | azaris: <Benzol> There are no official rules of handicap chess (obviously), but I'd say no. If you're not allowed to move your non-existing rook, why would you be allowed to castle with it? |
|
May-10-05
 | | Richard Taylor: Korchnoi was under some pressure and sufferred a momentary "blindness' -if he had been asked at another time -- that is in comfort - relaxed etc he
would have known - under pressure people often forget things like that...sometimes I do a kind of "double take" thinking I cant castle Q-side as the B kind of 'beams' through where the rook is to pass -its easy to get that mixed up -especially in the tension of a touranment game. Purdy actually died playing chess -with his boots on so to speak lol- I have a book about his correspondence career...he was of course World Champion (Correspondence) |
|
| May-10-05 | | offramp: <Benzol> I always thought that you could castle with an invisible rook, ie a removed rook. I am pretty certain of that. Are there any rook-odds games in the database? I'll try and find some on my own computer. |
|
| May-10-05 | | offramp: What a dolt I am! They can't be in the database or on computer, can they? The move Ke1-c1 would be illegal! |
|
May-10-05
| | Benzol: <offramp> It looks like this is the place to find Odds Games
Chess variants (000) |
|
| Jul-08-05 | | aw1988: I have never understood misunderstanding of castling. These are GM's, they should know instantly. |
|
Apr-24-06
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: That's another great thing about this website--I finally learned C.J.S. Purdy's first three names. |
|
| Oct-29-06 | | capablancakarpov: <offramp: <Benzol> I always thought that you could castle with an invisible rook, ie a removed rook. I am pretty certain of that> In fact, in the old chess, before 1500, castling was made in two moves, one approaching the rook to the king, and not necessarily at the next move, the king jumping over the rook two squares, so i believe that in handicap chess without rook a castle with an invisible rook should be correct, because castle is in fact two moves in one, so why canīt it be only one of this two moves? |
|
| Mar-26-07 | | nimzo knight: Actually exactly the same thing happened last week when I was playing with a friend.
My b1 square was attacked and he claimed I couldnt castle. I was sure, I made him immediately look it up online.
I gave him hard time saying he must know rules before he starts playing. How little I knew that one of great player of all times was in same shoes as him. I m sure he will be proud of himself. |
|
Apr-11-07
 | | keypusher: By the way, I kinda doubt this game was played in the Australian championship, unless Averbakh had dual citizenship. |
|
Apr-11-07
 | | Phony Benoni: <keypusher> It's possible. See <Resignation Trap>'s comment on this page: Fyodor Ivanovich Dus Chotimirsky As far as I can tell, "hors-concurs" simply means playing without being eligible for a specified title. |
|
Apr-11-07
| | keypusher: <Phony Benoni> Yes, you're quite right. Does anyone know if that is what happened here? |
|
| Apr-11-07 | | shalgo: Yes, Averbakh played "hors concours" in the 1960 Australian Championship. http://australianchess.blogspot.com... |
|
Oct-03-08
 | | GrahamClayton: Both Averbakh and his compatriot Vladimir Bagirov played "hors concours" in the 1960 Australian Championship at Adelaide, Averbakh finished 1st with a score of 14/15, while Bagirov finished second with a score of 12/15 Source: Anthony Wright "Australian Chess - 1949 to 1960", Melbourne 2004 |
|
Apr-27-11
 | | perfidious: Another game where castling was 'against the rules': Novopashin vs Korchnoi, 1962. |
|
May-18-11
| | perfidious: Here's a partial game score from my own collection of past foolishness where I castle while the rook is under attack: A Shaw-P Wolff, Bulger Memorial, 14.01.84 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.e3 g6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.a4 e6 9.dxe6 fxe6 10.Qd6 axb5 11.Bxb5 Bb7 12.Qxc5 Ng4 13.Be2 Nc6 14.Qg5 Qxg5 15.Nxg5 Nxf2. Wolff had prepared this variation (then a topical line in the Benko Gambit) with Jim Rizzitano, in the misguided belief that White had to move his rook, and was visibly shocked when I simply castled! |
|
Mar-16-13
 | | FSR: I think this was played in a simul. I would be shocked to learn that Averbakh played in an Australian championship. |
|
Mar-16-13
| | keypusher: <FSR: I think this was played in a simul. I would be shocked to learn that Averbakh played in an Australian championship.> As was I! But it happened. See posts below. I think Purdy would be far too strong for a simul anyway. |
|
Mar-16-13
| | FSR: <keypusher> Thanks. Guess I should have read the prior posts before making mine. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
