16482 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
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?
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.
There are a few positions, such as in some Ks Indians with the center locked, where the King is safe in the middle. It is not automatically the case that, because the queens are exchanged, the King will be safe from attack in the center. The King may well be left there for an endgame advantage if there is no danger! Steinitz said "The King is a strong piece, use it!", however few have the defensive genius of the great Wilhelm. In general I tell my students to castle early as understanding the nuances of when the King is safe in the center is difficult for the inexperienced and more often than not goes wrong!
The king is the strongest piece! It should not be hiding in a corner when it can be leading the Bongcloud Attack!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've often found not castling in the Caro-Kann the best way to victory in many ways.
I discuss the reasons for delayed castling here: http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/splane_m/chess/delayedcastling.htm
The exchange of queens does not always mean your king is safe in the center.
As a general rule, you want to centralize the king after the queen and one set of rooks have been exchanged. The exception is positions with the two bishops versus the two knights. Then it is usually ok to centralize the king, even with both pairs of rooks on the board.
Questionable Tactics in the Tactics Trainer?
by Martin_Stahl 3 minutes ago
Will Anand Consider Retirement?
by Shivsky 6 minutes ago
1. e4 again...
by Sqod 8 minutes ago
FIDE rating? yes how do we get that??
by krishnach 9 minutes ago
If time travel was possible
by TheGrobe 9 minutes ago
Any decent free books available for download?
by premio53 11 minutes ago
personal sacrifice files #1
by TheGrobe 17 minutes ago
Sound in Live chess
by SpotlessStar 22 minutes ago
Bobby Fischer's opening secrets
by chessmicky 23 minutes ago
Please comment on this pawn push
by slightlybalding 25 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!