Castle or not to Castle?

Sort:
Avatar of fischer-inactive
neneko wrote:Castling isn't always good.

Agreed. You gave a good example of an exception to the rule. (Chess, of course, is loaded with 'rules of thumb.') Unfortunately, the position from earlier in the thread is NOT one of those good examples.


Avatar of DeadMansChess
fischer wrote: DeadMansChess wrote:

Also, some mates work better with a castled king others don’t depending on what pieces you have to work with.

What do you think?


Bad example. Getting caught in the mating net of which you speak has nothing to do with the initial castled position. (BTW, if a person does not castle, then he potentially leaves himself open to other mating nets that could be much stronger.) The key is to keep an eye on your opponent's position and anticipate any attacks on your King. In the example from earlier in the thread, it's already a mate-in-1, and this is hardly an argument against castling when Black could have made other (stronger) moves between castling and the impending checkmate.


The question was, should you prevent your opponent from castling when you have a choice...  The diagram I posted is from a game where I decided to not let my opponent castle and it resulted in an easy mate.  I believed that if I let him castle I would have had a tougher time mating.  It appears that you subscribe to not letting your opponent castle when you have the opportunity to prevent it.


Avatar of likesforests

DeadMansChess> The question was, should you prevent your opponent from castling when you have a choice...

 

If you feel castling will help your opponent, by all means stop him. Sometimes castling doesn't help your opponent--for example, in an early endgame. In those cases, I prefer to leave my opponent the option of making the mistake of castling.


Avatar of mineta

Usually, it is improtant to castle. 

  If its is an open game, then castle. 

  If its a closed game, then usually it is okay to not castle (because your oppenent

will have a hard time getting to your king.

   Ususally in an open position, it is worth sacking a pawn to prevent your oppenent from castling. 

   I like to castle because it is easier to get my rook in the game. 

 

 


Avatar of Bowens
DeadMansChess wrote: wormrose wrote: "Castle if you must, or if you want to, but not because you can!" --- Hans Berliner
"Protect your king! ..While at the same time preventing opponent castle! A piece sacrafice is worth this!" --- Morphy's 5th rule of engagement. 
Maybe Morphy could afford to lose a piece but not me. I doubt you would find many modern players recommending this. Castling is usually a good move during the opening phase but I have played games under heavy attack, trying to find a chance to castle, and when I finally got the opportunity I looked around and found I was better off to keep my King centralized. So there isn't any absolute rule. It's like giving check to your opponent's King - there's no reason to do it unless it improves your position.

Thanks for the comment.  Also, I didn't know Morphy had rules of engagement, thanks for that!  I'm with you on losing the piece, and those were both very helpful quotes!


 If "losing a piece" is a sac with a combo behind it, then by all means go for it...

 If you have sufficient mating material ready to attack, draw the king out to the center...


Avatar of HIDDENFORTRESS

Don't castle!!  It loses momentum, use the momentum for an all out assault on the enemy king, they will have some counter play but it will be too little too late.  You will get there first. Guaranteed to work or your money back.

Avatar of wolverine96

Here's an example of when my opponent castled, and it lost him the game:



Avatar of Prologue1

It really does depends on the opening, is many cases. A good example is the Berlin defense, open variation. Even though the position is open, black is doing fine, even though his king is in the center, lost the right to castle.