Castling is the Worst Rule in Chess

Don't knock math. Combinatorial Game Theory has made large strides in understanding how to win at Go.

Is that you, Emo?

(For those that are confused: "A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing." - Emo Philips)

Why? Without casting you couldn't do this:

I included the bishop because without it whites last move would have had to be with either the king or the rook and therefore would not be able to castle.

That's one of my favorite moves to play in chess: queenside castling while giving check, especially after trading queens on d8. (I don't think I've ever picked up any material on b2 because of that maneuver, though.)

Then just play this variant if you hate castling so much. Problem solved:

https://www.chess.com/variants/no-castling

Castling is good because make game more complicated. But good option is to disable castle in first about 10-15movs.

Did a 1,900 rapid player just say that?!

Actually that doesn't always hold true. Alot of times the king is safer in the center (but on the edge and defended by other pieces), than in the corner with a pawn storm rolling down the board and nowhere to go. The castle position looks safe but it's not defended very well. That's why I usually delay castling at the beginning of the game, because while one can always do so when needed, it's much harder to get the king out of a castled position once in one while facing an attack.

Castling connects the rooks and in case of queen side castling, move the rook to the semi open (or open) d file.

did i ask?

"Just" = six years ago.

Pawns turn into enemy

How ridiculous to suggest game is better off without any casting? All that would do is slow the game down with kings stuck in the middle the would be no open attacking play and a lot if time wasting king moves to try and run one's king into safety?!! It amazes me the amount of suggestions on the rise ranging from 1. Get rid of En-passant 2. No more Stalemate allowed?? 3. And most recent of the ridiculous being 4. No checking allowed for first 20 moves all suggestions offering no realistic improvement to a

Game that needs no improvements to enhance its present beauty!!

Repetition being a loss or a win for one of the sides is the most ridiculous suggestion I've seen. And people have argues for both. Some say 3 fold Repetition should be a win for the side doing the perpetual checking, and others claim that the side doing the checking should lose because it's laughable that they can't find any other way to avoid mate and is an "unfair" stalling tactic! Total insanity.

In answer to the title: no.

I disagree with a "no" answer to Uthor's question whether chess might be better off without the castling rule. There are many fine games where one or neither side castle, along with the many such where castling has taken place. I am of the opinion that tournament or single match games might be played under various conditions, such as a theme opening (choosing a known opening variation position considered theoretically even), or the 960 variant. Games stipulating "no castling" would be welcome in this context.

in this 960 game I castle Queen side & he got greedy . . .

He took the poison pawn and got mated . . .

https://www.chess.com/game/daily/580536287

Chess 960 is a scam. Pieces should not be required to mirror each other. It should be totally random. And even with the symmetry it just doesn't produce the same level of interesting complex opening positions that standard chess does with the orientation of pieces on the 1st rank.