Castle-Is it worth it?
Sort:
We waste time to castle. The opponent can easily use one bishop/or any support and a queen and game over. The Castle relies on that the king kills the piece himself. When the piece is already protected, the king can neither kill the attacker nor even dodge away because he is in a closed corner. What do you think?
Well, if the center is closed, I will not castle until my opponent commits his castling. However if the center is fluid I will castle as quickly as I can
Jun 9, 2017
0
#3
Grandmaster ASdg8 I don't agree with you at all I think that castle is the best source of protection for king and a mate happens only to a fool or beginners
Yea dude u need to get a castle in u don't want a naked king 😁
Jun 9, 2017
0
#5
The question is very broad. A broad answer is yes, of course you want to castle. However, there are many instances where a win can be achieved without castling. Chess is very fluid, you need to be able to zig and zag when necessary and go "out of the book"
Jun 9, 2017
0
#6
Sometimes, if you castle automatically you will walk right into a bishop sac followed by queen and knight. While that is true, it doesn't mean it's safer in the middle. You want to move your central pawns and the king can be attacked from both sides, so naturally the middle cannot be the safest place for the king unless there are certain circumstances. Already mentioned was the closed centre. There can also be early wing attacks (from white) that make castling even more dangerous. In the majority of cases, however, you will sooner lose by not castling.
He was asking for an opinion jackass. I'm 1200 but I still have an opinion and it's is that you can eat a dick.
As a player of open openings ( such as 1.e4) I find it useful to castle, especially to get the stress of the f pawn. It prevents the back rank mate. When you say it is a bishop and a queen and then game over, it is not entirely true. It can be easily defended by moving a pawn on the g or h file. Castling is also the best way to develop rooks once all the pawns are out, because they can cover the e file and d file, while also protecting the king.
Jun 11, 2017
0
#10
GrandmasterASdgr8 wrote:
We waste time to castle. The opponent can easily use one bishop/or any support and a queen and game over. The Castle relies on that the king kills the piece himself. When the piece is already protected, the king can neither kill the attacker nor even dodge away because he is in a closed corner. What do you think?
There are times castling is a waste but much, much more often there is a great advantage to castling early because, in addition to the fact castling is the easiest way to get your King's Rook active in the middle of the board, there are two key problems when you do NOT castle: 1) your pieces can easily be pinned or double-attacked along with your King, costing you material and 2) you have to spend time and moves defending the open king that don't happen when he's behind a castle.
In Fred Wilson's Simple Attacking Plans, one of his four principles is: "If possible, point all of your pieces at your opponent's king." That's done more easily if he doesn't castle! Here's an example where my opponent didn't bother castling and, even though I had the disadvantage of the Black pieces, by move 12 I had two of my major pieces pointed right at my opponent's king and I tried to get as many pieces aimed at him as possible. The Royal Fork I won by was due to a mistake on my opponent's part, but not castling made the mistake - or another one - more likely: