FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Short answer: Of course it's not worth it to sac a piece just to deprive an opponent of castling.
But the longer answer is that it's often very desirable to sac a piece to keep the king in the center if you already have a decisive lead in development. There are many examples of such sacrifices.
But 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+?? isn't one of them.
Yes, castling is overrated, but still nevertheless important. In one of my recent games I even moved the queen bishop before castling because there were lines where if it was attacked then queenside castling would be ideal because of the open g-file (this didn't actually happen).
Principle of flexibility sometimes contradicts advice saying to castle early, and most times we should, but if we traded down into an endgame then castling is a mistake as your king is now farther from the center. This actually happened to me years ago, and right after I castled facepalmed myself (moving too fast was a problem for me then) for stupid hand weaving (though I didn't know that particular term back then).
Heisman also calls blindly playing a move off a general principle "hand weaving", especially when there are concrete tactical variations to work out. When there are that's when we should make a positional assessment of all the lines we analyse and determine best capture that way.
Kings that don't castle often don't live to regret it.
Reminds me of this game:
It is normal to open the centre and to castle, since this is safer. It also connects the rook. You can somewhat weaken the castled position as long as you don't think the other side will get through. Moving pawns can also be an attempt to completely ''lock'' the pawn structure, which is very safe.
If you don't castle, the centre should be fairly closed. If the opening turns right into the endgame castling is often not needed.
pls pls have a look at this game - http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=453345953
a touch of rashid N, with stupid play on either side of it lol
I don't mean to be rude, but the issue in your games is not that one side castled. It is that you and your opponent make silly moves that my nine-year old would not. Castling is not overrated. If anything, people forget to do it too often.
Let me show you a game where a 1700 rated player in 3-day turn based doesn't castle, makes weakening moves and gets crushed like a grape. If you wish to analyze, you will see that he is completely lost by move 7 and the rest is simply proving that the winning side knows how to convert.
Had Black developed and castled, it would have been a chess game instead of target practice.
my opponents dismantle my castles by mere pawn storms !!
Like most preparatory moves it eventually rises to the top on your to-do list. Doing it earlier may rule out other important moves... or it may not matter at all. It also may keep your opponent guessing about what ideas he'll have in the middlegame. This judgement just takes experience.
What you say is true, waffle. But if the player is under 1200 USCF then they need to learn the rule to develop, castle and fight for the center. After 1200 they can learn when the rule should be disregarded.
I agree. Castle every game and early if you're new... and even when you're a master you're going to castle nearly every game and almost always in the opening.
i think in general when playing weaker players its better not to castle, at least not to early because they play opening systems that teach them an attack on castled king but when you dont castle they lack good plan.Unless its a really sharp and open position.
A king in the middle is much easier to attack IMO, you naturally have pawn conflicts in the centre and so files normally open there much more quickly.
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.
A high quality game where my opponent neglecting to castle was the only thing that cost him the game:
Hi Scott - my rating is nowhere near yours, so please can you explain what you mean here? To my mind, playing nc6 early on and then running it around the board, restricted his development - he then gave it away on c2. Was he not lost at that stage anyway? Cheers, Eric
Yeah, I was being sarcastic
Here's a position one of my students played recently. Please, keep your kings in the center when the center's being opened up!
The first moves were: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7?! 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 d6 7.Bg5 Nxe4 8.Nxe4 Bxg5 9.Nxc6 bxc6
If I'm playing weaker players, I'll just say "Challenge Accepted", play my normal game, and rely on being good enough to defend against their attack. Better that than change *my* gameplan just to force them to change theirs.
I often consider not castling because it seems that it puts my king almost in a corner and lets my opponent know which side of the board to attack. I understand that it brings the rook to the middle so it can connect with my other rook, but sometimes that seems like less of a benefit than my kings safety.
I watch a lot of master games on some sites and notice how often they break the "rules" by not castling early or advancing the kings defensive pawns. It makes me think that every game is so different, the rules should be used less often and imagination and flexability more.