Castling in 960

Thee must be a previous thread but couldn't find it... Anyway, this should not be legal: http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=1500352&nmove=6

[game;id:150035;move:6]

[game;id:1500352;move:6] the previous was obviously incorrect

I agree, it should't be allowed.

Here is a discussion about chess-960 castling rules: Castling in Chess960, An appeal for simplicity (by John Kipling Lewis)

Castling in 960 isn't that complicated, although it does confuse some players at first. The king and rook must end up on the 'usual' squares (i.e. g1/f1 or c1/d1) and obey the normal castling rules.

I agree that it is illegal in this position, as the king would travel through check on f1

It's confusing because it's different than the normal rules. I learned the normal rules as "move King 2 squares towards the Rook, then the Rook in the square passed by the King". It's certainly more intuitive this way and easier to teach to kids, even when they can't read.

I never really understood why you would have castling in chess960

Can't argue with either of the above points, both would probably lead to very playable variants. But they're the rules

I suppose moving the king two squares would still be contentious when the rook starts fewer than three squares from the king. My interpretation would be at least when they start next to each other, you can't castle on that side because the square the king jumps over isn't clear.

As for not being able to castle at all, i don't see that that's more logical. The principal idea behind is to get rid of known lines of play but still have the game very much like chess. Being able to jump your king to relative safety near a corner is rather central to chess strategy.