Movable center?

One of the golden rules is maintaining control of the center of the board. Fine, we all get that. When the battle is such that the main play on the board is to one side or the other, is a new "center" then created? For example, I'm involved in a real time game where both sides have castled to the King side and the majority of the pieces and pawns are on that right side (white orientation) of the board.

So, my question is: do you approach the game as though the center has shifted to that more crowded side OR do you use the emptier side to mount your attack? Obviously, much depends on what pieces are involved and positioning. I'm just talking about philosophically. 

I hope the question makes sense. 

Chess is such that such questions always depend on the position, there can be no definate general answer.

No the center of the board is always the center of the board. However, I think what you're saying is that if you have locked control of the center, then basically there is a "center within the center" because the center is now part of your territory, and there is a new focal point between your territory and your opponent's territory.

However, control of the center is no longer the Golden Rule of Chess. The hypermodern movement, with its rock-solid defenses (Sicilian, Indian Defenses) and openings (English, Reti/Zukertort) have shown that using the empty wings to attack the center is an effective strategy to say the least.

Philosophically and in reality, everything in chess depends on piece activity: how much of your army is developed and how much mobility the major and minor pieces have. Every pawn move creates new strengths and weaknesses in the position, so it's all about navigating your army around your opponent's strong points and aiming at his weaknesses.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that every piece except the rook has more possible moves from the center four spaces, resulting in increased efficiency of each piece. Plus, controlling this area forces the opposition to the sides of the board cutting down their move choices, splitting up their forces, and giving you more cooperation between your pieces. 

I agree with #5. Control of the centre is like holding the high ground on a hill. Of course each contest will focus on various squares anywhere on the board which are important for that particular position but the advantages associated with the centre are seldom trivial.

I always try to contest the centre, but only because i'm told to by the innumerable books I've read. But I don't think I've ever said, after a loss: "my weak centre cost me that game". Maybe my strategic sense is too weak to notice it.

Absolutely true. 2 of my current games to illustrate this point:

In game 2 all of Black's pieces have been reduced to their 1st or second ranks, with not many prospects of improving their position, so he can do virtually nothing but wait to be slowly crushed. And all because of my immovable pawn wedge on d5.

And in game 1 although his position is nowhere near as hopeless as game 2, mine is still significantly better because of my uncontested central pair.