Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

To castle or not to castle

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #1


    i heard a rather accomplished chess player say that it's not so important to castle if the queens have been taken off the board early.  Is this correct thinking?

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #2


    I wouldn't use it as a general rule.

    Basically: castling achieves two things: gets your king to safety, and brings your rook into play.

    Now, if you trade a lot of pieces early, king safety might be less important, because your opponent won't have such a powerful attack. However, castling might still be a good way to bring in your rook. Or it might not: sometimes you need your king as an atacking piece.

    So when you're unsure about castling, consider whether your king needs to get to safety, and what's the best way to bring your rook into play.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #3


    The king is the strongest piece!  It should not be hiding in a corner when it can be leading the Bongcloud Attack!

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #4


    It depends on the position. Rooks and pieces can mate you very quickly if the guy can get them directed to you...dont underestimate the danger of being checkmated just because queens are gone. But sure if there is no way for the pieces to get at your king then this isnt a concern. Castling is not just about king safety, however...if your king doesnt get out of the way you might find it difficult for your rooks to manouver around him. It just depends on the position.

    Even without queens traded i sometime see positions where the king is somehow safer in the center (I most often see this when im playing the saemish KID)...So the queens being traded part isnt so much the relevant factor imo

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #5


    I think there are definitely situations where castling is pointless, but I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Even if the queens are off, you may not want to castle. And sometimes the queens are still on and castling is unnecessary.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #6


    Well I happened to play a game just now which illustrates the possible dangers in some positions so i guess ill share it. Sure he made some bad moves, but his position was going to go down in flames whatever he did because he could not castle, even though queens were traded.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #7


    I actually do not think that's correct because it brings your king to safety, which is the most important thing in the game of chess. But make sure that castling is safe first.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #8


    I guess, as with most games, you have to take it on a case-by-case basis. I've sometimes found that castling can lead to the other person strangling your King as he has nowhere to move.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #9


    In the main line of the Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense, Black gains a displaced King but has a hard to break position. There's some lines of the Philidor where Black gains a displaced King but has a similarly difficult position for White to assault. Thus, sometimes - but never a general rule.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #10


    The position is usually less sharp with the queen's off the board, but that isn't an excuse to neglect king safty.  Put the king where he is safe.  In many games the king will be safer on one of the wings.  Sometimes, however, the center may lock and the play may turn to attacks with the wing pawns, in which case it might be safter to have the king in the middle.  Thats the exception, rather than the rule, however.  Most of the time you will want to castle.

    Also, when you castle you move one of the rooks closer to the center, potentially uniting the rooks and making it easier for them to move to the part of the board where they are needed, so castling is something of a developing move as well.

  • 5 years ago · Quote · #11


    I've often found not castling in the Caro-Kann the best way to victory in many ways.

Back to Top

Post your reply: