is castling over-rated

is castling over rated - sometimes in trying to castle other development is compromised, sometimes the "castle" is not perfect - we could have achieved that ammount of king safety otherwise too - besides there are standard techniques of breaking a castle - some other most famous games are precesily about how the castle was shattered and the king cornered - also my two cents is not to be the first to castle - cos if you are then the opponent will knmow which side to do the pawn storm on - what do you think

no castle - http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=409264444

castling and humiliating loss - http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=408905187

Castling is the best strategy and should be used in every game you play.

(Except for the exceptions.)

so what did i do wrong in the first game - my only positive in that game was that i managed to castle !!

I think many players castle too early, and/or too often.

Castle when it's the best move, for no other reason.

If the queens come off early, seriously consider NOT castling, I think.

also is there any "correct" castle - i have seen some top players castle with just the knight on duty - some with the bishep fienchetto-ed - some castle into an imperfect formation (pawn has already moved or king is easily attack-able etc) - so whats the deal and the science behind it

I will comment on the second game because there were several easy to fix mistakes.

4. Bd3 blocks the d pawn, with the d pawn blocked its very uncomfortable to get your other bishop out. Bc4 would have been much better.

11. hxg3 was a big no-no. just because a capture is possible does not mean it is the best move. pushing your g pawn instead of taking on the h file would have locked up the pawns in front of your king making it much harder for him to attack. 

12. Ng2 wasn't really necessary, as Ng3 would have defended just as well without giving up a piece

15. c4 left the knight hanging when it didn't have to be, 15. Ne3 would have saved the knight and from e3 the knight would have been gaurding the g2 square

21. Kxe1, yes it captures a piece and gets out of check. but his queen was attacked by your knight there, so taking the queen would have also gotten you out of check, and you wouldn't have gotten mated.

in other words: castling didn't cost you the game, other things did. 

usually castling is a good idea. only in very specific circumstances is castling bad. such as: when it allows an immediate attack (or mate). or if they already have pawns pushed and open files towards the castled position. or when almost all of the pieces on the board are traded off and you're in an endgame where the king belongs in the middle of the board. 

The three goals of every opening are: Control the center, Develop pieces democratically and protect the King.

Castling is usually the easiest way to accomplish these goals.

BUT, the opening is also a race. You should prepare to castle as early as possible but defer castling as long as you have a better move. If you can start an attack by postponing castling, then start that attack!

trying to castle inhibits my game - often times i do not push pawns on the sides cos it would ruin the "castle - only to have the knight and bishop pair up and attack the king - and ruining castling chances anyway - so ultimately no flank development and no castling either - or lost some piece in trying to prevent king from taking on c2/c7/f2/f7.

 almost all the games i lost are because i screwed up in the opening in trying to castle - the other great reason is blundering in the middle/end game

by and large i have seen i play well when i survive the openning without losing much material and/or initiative -  successful castling has little corelation with my victories.

Play the Grob. You'll find you don't castle nearly as often.

Or don't. I play it, so it can't be good. ;-)

grob?

1. g4. Many consider it one of the very worst openings. I consider it a way of life. You'll find castling, especially K-side, is not at a premium in the Grob. Don't play it. Unless you like fun. And can stomach bad Chess.

Children!!! Don't try this at home!!!

What do you mean by pushing pawns on the sides?  If you mean what black did in that game you lost, then I don't think that had anything to do with castling.  It's a bad attack.  The person was rated 200 more, but at those low levels, that may not matter too much.

One of the important things I've learnt about castling is that it stops your king from being stuck in the center.  Sure, when I started chess a few months ago I wondered the same thing, and often times got smack downs due to castling.  I've ran into this mindless king hunt stuff so many times that I'm generally pretty good at dealing with them.  I think it's just part of the learning process.  

You'd be surprised by how many people twice your rating still go for quick knock out punches against the king side pawns that end up failing.  Here is an example from one of my games where the opponent was completely obsessed with knocking me out, sparing no men to do so.  The attack is better than the one in the game that you lost, and uses pieces rather than pawns, but it shows some of the recklessness you'll run into and is a good example of not panicking just because there is an angry queen near your king.

This question is like: Are sunglases over-rated for blind people.

Indeed, I think what you're doing is only focussing on the area of the board your opponent last moved.

Even if it wasn't mate winning a knight and trading queens would put the game to bed.

I actually think castling is underrated. I think people try too much to "break the rule" by not castling when really they should stick to it.

Really though this question is just as unproductive as asking if a bishop is better than a knight. Castling is good if you can find reasons why it would be useful to have your king on g1 and rook on f1, bad if you can't, or if you don't think such a configuration achieves anything meaningful.

It's that simple. Use your brain. Logically figure out if castling makes sense; don't just ask yourself which rule you are going to follow today.

I kind of agree, but 1e4, 2 N somewhere, 3 B Somewhere 4 0-0 is not always best. Maybe it's hardly ever bad, but I still say 0-0 has no mystical special quality. Do it when it's the best move you can come up with,  not because of some silly unwritten rule

Game 1 -> Like Pfren said you had a win on move 9.  Besides that you should have castled before both sides were messed up or not at all, castling Queen side with that messed up structure was really not worth it.  Your King was exposed by black, castling or not you were in trouble.  Game 2 on move 11 Why take his pawn?  you exposed your king by doing this.  Also none of your pieces are really developed before you castled.

Castling is overrated.  It's often a necessary move, but too many people think that castling ASAP is a must, and often they are killing themselves.

A lot depends on the opening being played.

Take the following openings ...

King's Indian - 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O
Nimzo-Indian - 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O
KIA vs French - 1.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.Ngf3 c5 5.g3 Nc3 6.Bg2 Be7 7.O-O O-O intending Nd7 (if White plays e5), b5, a5, Ba6, b4, etc.

In each of those cases, Castling is part of the opening itself.  However, there are other openings where castling too early is a mistake.

Modern Defense - 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Be3 a6 5.Nf3 b5 intending ...Nbd7, ...Bb7, and ...c5.  Black doesn't want to develop the King's Knight just so he can Castle too quickly as it prevents Bh6.  It also leaves White guessing whether you'll castle Kingside, Queenside, or often not at all!  I've had many games where I didn't castle, and was fine, either drawing, or sometimes outright winning!

KIA vs Sicilian - After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d3 Nge7 4.Nbd2 g6 5.g3 Bg7 6.Bg2 Nc6 7.O-O d5 8.Re1, 8...O-O is a known error due to commitment too soon.  White has a ready-made attack, and just has to time e5 right such that Black can't play ...g5 in response.

So long story short, it depends!