It does leave the white king undefended, but it gives white an unopposed central pawn which, even if attacked by something like f5 or Nf6, would provide an advantage for white (at least early and middle game)
but later in the game, it seems to me that the undefended king would prove something of a disadvantage for white
I have no idea how sound it is,but if i can trade queens and move his king to take,i'll always do it.Then i try to castle myself as quickly as possible.But then again,i'm a so so player:)
Speaking generally: Taking away your opponent's right to castle is generally most useful if you can build up a strong attack on the king, but to do this you generally need your queen. So trading queens just to get the opponent's king stuck in the center isn't automatically a good move (whereas I'd say capturing the king's bishop on f1 or f8 to force the loss of castling rights is generally a better move). If you want to make good use of the weakened king position, you will need to find a way to quickly build up pressure against the uncastled king. Otherwise, all trading queens does is allow your opponent to save a couple tempi that he would have had to spend moving his king to the center for the eventual endgame.
Anyway, this is a generalization, so take it for what it's worth.
hello,
in the opening theory, there are some traps that reveals the queens to each other and give one to exchange them while made the king to recapture and then lose the castling option... like in this example:
is it that bad to lose the castling option while the queens are lost? maybe its an advantage that making the king closer to the center while the other king hide?
i know a strategy that says after that happen the castling of the side can do it need to be queenside because the rook come infront of the uncastled king...
there are any example games that use that "trap" to made the king close to the center?
what do think about that in general?
thanks :)