Is castling really a good idea?

Exactly. I've won games against lower-rated opponents by launching an assault against their king without ever getting the time (or the need) to castle myself.

   Castling has one major disadvantage:  your "permanent home address" is known to your opponent from that point on . . . . The best chess players I know don't castle as often as some of the average players do.  The best chess players I know are really good at tactics and very solid in the endgame.   If tactical advantage; or positional advantage from tactics is available or a queen trade or classic queen + rook 14-point trade can be pretty much forced early  -- these are the specific situations I've noticed when that type of players doesn't castle at all; or at least don't castle by move #7 or even by move #12.

   Emanuel Lasker's recommended opening goals are still valid over a century later:  a. While playing to control and contest control of the center accomplish the following 7 goals between move #7 and, say move #12:   b.  Move both center pawns (usually move at least one to the fourth rank)  c.  Develop all four minor pieces (both knights and both bishops), that is, get them off the back rank so that if you castle, your rooks can soon be connected.  d. Castle. 

But as far as castling goes any trade or better yet any multiple-trade producing an endgame or material or positional edge in situations where the King is safer or just as safe in or near the center as he would be after castling on either side is always looked over carefully because better players like to win and simpler positions in the endgame for them are not necessarily so simple for most opponents. If the central pawns are "deadlocked" delayed-castling or avoidance of castling is also more likely. Delaying Castling can also give you an edge in the typical PAWN race that occurs when both players castle on different sides. -- 1-5 moves of unanswered pawn advances on his Kingside by you while your opponent wonders if your King will remain in the center, can be a huge attacking advantage.

   Bobby Fischer's little primer Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is actually a treatise on connecting rooks early.  It's remarkable how often the winning combinations he shows are backrank or other tactical shots based upon the opponent being behind in development and having his rooks unconnected.  Morphy-like Fischer seems to never get behind in development except when important material gain can be achieved and then endured.  But in virtually every position in that little book of his, Fischer's side is castled with connected rooks.

If you dont castle your king, crazy sacrifices from your opponent suddenly turn deadly. If they get the e file open with a rook trained on you, youre pretty much dead.

Spot on. Most of us are simply not good enough to become involved in castling finesses. I castle then I exhale.

Thanks prawn. Ya from what Ive heard, the f2/f7 square depending on what color your opponent is, and the efile, are the ways to go about attacking an uncastled king. If your opponent makes the mistake of not castling, attack with those 2 ideas in mind. I actually just played a game where my opponent didnt castle quickly enough and I won. Its in the game showcase forum.

Otherwise said, play always the best move and you will never lose... The useful part of that answer is true yet.

The practical advice I heard from some other member here is : with 14 "pieces points" or less on the board for your opponent, do not castle (assuming rook = 5, bishop or knight = 3, queen = 10).

As for the moment to castle and the side to castle :

- "never" (it depends on the position of course - no rule is absolute in chess) castle on the opposite side of your opponent if you are late in development ;

- castle either when you feel dangerous in the center (e.g. when d-e files threaten to open) or when you don't see anything else useful to do (it will let you another move to see the opponent's piece positioning)

I find that half the time, my main goal is to keep the options to castle kingside or queenside open. Especially with the Bird's opening, my ideal set-up seems to be with pawns on b3, d3, e3, f4, g3...and if my development is not hindered, then my game becomes very flexible - I can castle queenside or kingside depending on my plans and if my opponent starts throwing crazy sacrifices at me.

My advice is - keep the option open. As people rightly point out, a king in the centre is a tempting target; however, if you play solidly and develop, you'll find that your pawns and pieces become useful shields and prophylaxis - they stop other nasty checks. I'll post this for now, and see if I can find a nice game later.

ScarredEyes makes a great point! Keep your options open regarding Kingside or Queenside Castling. Most beginning players are taught that it is easier to Castle Kingside because you have one less piece to remove prior to Castling. However, you may be forced into Queenside Castling and should become used to it. I actually prefer to Castle on the opposite side from my opponent's Castled King. Why? Because I prefer the game's dynamic (if it is my choice rather than being forced into it).

The added benefit to Castling is bringing your Rook to a more centralized location. If you don't Castle you're going to have lose tempo bringing the stranded Rook into the game. Castling makes sense when you consider the opening thrust is in the board's center which means your opponent is marshaling his or her forces towards the d and e files. If your King gets stuck it becomes a target.

I think timing is the critical factor in Castling. Too many players will Castle prematurely when they should be gaining a stronging position in the center. In reviewing Grandmaster games for my classes, I am always amazed at how a storng player knows just when to Castle. Of course, there are those who say "Real men don't castle." I guess I simply not a real man but at least my King doesn't get caught with his crown in the wind!

Well also, I'm pretty sure "Real men" don't lose in 10 moves. In my opinion, you do not want to castle too early, but a lot of times having your King prone to checks and certain open file threats could mess up your position. Even if you manage to defend the checks and such enough to give yourself time to castle, a lot of times by that time you allowed quick development by your opponent and / or messed up your position. 

Even after castling, sometimes it's important to add the propholaxis move of Kh1 (if you moved your f-pawn) or Kg1 (if you castled Queenside), even if there are no immediate threats. 

I think the main problem with not castling early enough is you leave yourself open to a lot of threats. Even though at the time they are not possible to execute, you have to be somewhat cautious of every move you make (preventing your own capabilities), and even at times your own attack could completely go to waste with easy counter attacks against your center King.

That's an interesting point I-GO-HARD. This just goes to prove I learn something interesting every day! While it would be difficult for many players to maintain a centralized King, I do see the merit of your idea. Thanks for the posting!

I finally managed to play a game with keeping options open. I know I lost, but I lost on 7 seconds with time, with a very decisive advantage. Castling proved to be extremely useful at the right time, just before I was going to start an attack. Annotated game below:

Just be careful castling queenside.  You have a diagonal which is vulnerable to attack your king unless you move it over.  And watch out for your opponent's position, too.  In a recent game, my opponent castled queenside with his queen at d7.  This allowed me to simply move my bishop and skewer his king & queen on that diagonal, pinning his queen and making him eventually lose it.

 Too true. If you've been sensible and didnt move the a, b, c pawns, castled queenside, you might find that Black's Qxa2 become very deadly - you could find yourself lacking a tempo to avoid Qa1#.

Wouldn't that be embarrassing...

This is the game I was talking about:

And I myself have found myself in trouble with an exposed king a time or two after castling queenside.  Watch out for your opponents queen & bishops when going queenside.

http://www.chess.com/article/view/classical-games-everybody-should-know-part-6

Castling is a good idea to move the king away from the center to a safer place but being mindful that after castling , your position is well defended by atleast 1 piece and not open to a free attack. It helps to connect the rooks as well so that they can move freely.

My little suggestion. Always castle early as possible. And any time this fails to fluster the opponent and win you the game--never play that opponent again. This is the basis of how to win online games. And also to prevent your ever being pitched against a computer.

As a player of both chess and poker--the goal of poker is winning. The typical logical goal of chess is perhaps seldom consciously understood. But is actually more like jogging or kung fu. To become better and better for the rest of your life. Unless you are among the 0.001% who have a chance to become the best of the best.

I.e. there is no logical reason for 99.99% of people to time their running speed. Or to want to beat the crap out of the next fighter or chess player. Because--what exactly does this prove? Nada. In point of fact--whether in chess or kung fu--you might actually be the best of the best. But after beating someone they pull out a shiv and you are no longer alive. Is that winning? Where did all that expertise get you?

I personally only play chess with someone who has won a tournament or something. Then I might experience something. Learn something. Otherwise what's the point? I.e. I only play chess when I am expecting to be plastered. If however you have the utterly nonsensical idea that you "play to win......" I have given my advice.

As for jogging--never time yourself. That is ridiculous. What really matters is the length of time you jog and that you keep it up for decades. Also in fact--never jog. It wrecks the knees. Much healthier is "fast walking" or "striding" or "truckin." The rule of a walking race is that one foot is always on the ground. "Striding" leads to a long life with happy knees. Vs ending up in a wheel chair after decades of agony, drugs and failed surgeries. Also striding is just as effecting in enabling you to run fast and far whenever in danger.

Striding or swimming are better than chess. The only thing better is climbing. "Maxi climber" suggested. Otherwise you could be able to run for miles--but unable to get out of that car or house when it catches fire--or to get up that tree away from that animal--or back in that boat. It's not so easy. Chin-ups are not good enough. There is nothing like being able to push yourself right up over that branch, window, roof, wall or boat. That is my idea of winning.

My chess advice above says, in all things, think like a con artist. Play the long game.

But--I admit--is castling serious or a kiddie move--is a great question. I wondered it too. That's how I got here. Learned a lot from a lot of good answers. But after putting them all together--you have my result.

https://www.chess.com/live/game/5416804227

It is good but not at all