Always win without castle --- the most satisfying victory

I enjoy seeing my opponents, who believed that castle king would make their king safe, and mistakenly believed that it would be easy to attack my king, which stay at center files for most of time, found the reality was not what they expected.

In fact, nearly all my opponents found that they come into heavy attack and need to defend throughout the rest of the game after they castled because I use the tempo to develop pieces much faster than opponents.

If they have ever used the courage to play chess, by keeping the king at center to play against me, then it would be much harder for me to win.

Here are the first example (I played as black and with nearly 90% accuracy)

Here are the second example: (I played as white and my king had never moved before the opponent resignation)

Does anyone have similar playstyle as me? I want much more exciting games with both players play with courage and duel.

i respect that you got 90 accuracy

but i got 1000 percent accuracy and checkmated my oppenent once

i mean 100

@ gold_gem @achnach

This is another game with more than 90% accuracy.

My tip is to delay castling as white to frustrate Kings Indian Defence players. Guys like to play their kingside attacks, but that only hits air when you don't castle. I like the Samisch variation, where the centre of the board is usually closed, so there is little danger having your king in the middle. I just keep pushing my pawns and squeezing them.
Like in this game, I didn't castle until move 23 and won.

I hear many chess influencers urging players to castle as soon as possible. But I think it's a wrong advice because:
1) Sometimes, by castling, you run directly into opponent's attack.
2) If queens are traded off, it's often better to keep your king close to the centre for the upcoming endgame.
3) In closed positions without pawn breaks in the centre, it's often a strong strategy to delay castling, keeping all options viable (queen and kingside castle, or remaining in the centre). This is uncomfortable for your opponent because, if he wants to attack you, he doesn't know where to commit.

Just reviewing the first game and yeah, not sure why your opponent thought it would be a good idea to trade all the pieces into an endgame. If your opponent hasn't castled, you have to open up the position and keep pieces on the board - attack! He should've tried to punish your king position a bit. Instead, he traded the pieces completely justifying your king as now an active piece for the endgame. Complete misunderstanding of the position by your opponent.

Does that mean you should always play without castling? Or that castling is always a good move? No. But the real reason you won that game wasn't really about castling, it was about your opponent completely misunderstanding the demands of the position.

Similarly, your second game wasn't won because you kept your king in the centre per se, it was won because your opponent hung a pawn fork. Your opponent had quite a nice position, and had he played something like Ne4 instead of c5 he may have had some very nice prospects because of your weak king. To highlight the point further, had he played Ne4 the engine suggests that your best move is to castle!