The answer to this question is entirely circumstancial, and is far too vague to answer accurately.
Queenside Castling
Sort:
Surely it is understood that all defense are reactional yet the basic concept must have been explored by someone in the past. Of course I am referencing the proposed defense in relation to the standard castle as a defense. please forgive my ignorance on this subject.
Does anyone have an diagram of this? ("Yugoslav Attack in the Sicilian Dragon")
There are exceptions when queenside castling is a better defense compared to kingside castling but then again , these are pretty obvious.
a) Your kingside pawn structure is wrecked.
b) Your opponent has developed his pieces aiming at your kingside
Margryx: The consept is to allow your opponenent to develop his pieces assuming the standard castle and the switch the castle at the last possible minute. Following this you push the king side hard to distroy your oppononts frontline. Thus Mathiasmall is correct in his categorizing it as offensive. Besides isn't the best offense a good defense?
It takes an extra move to castle queenside, and if you wait until you have both options, you've used three extra moves. The only defense I know where this is routinely done is the Advance Caro Kann. For White it's easier as he has the initiative. For Black, it's not as flexible an option. Besides Caros' Black castles queenside in some lines of Petrovs and in King's Gambits, if he gets to castle at all. You should never see it against d4 or c4.
Mcelvane wrote:
I am working on a defensive game which utilizes the longside/Queenside castle as a defense. Has anyone had much success with this type of game.
don't try to hard you might hurt yourself
I was working through an annotated game,famous game between Paul Morphy v Duke Karl / Count Isouard and saw an amazing example of castling queenside.
Occurs on the 12th move.
matthiassmall wrote:
Just going by your describing it as a defense, I would have to say that it would not be so effective. Queenside castling is usually offensive in nature, allowing you to launch your kingside pawns at the enemy king (if castled kingside, of course).
I was taught that too. Aside from that, I agree with aatkins in that it really depends on the situation. For you to become an effective player, you need to know when to castle queenside, and when to castle kingside.
it goes along with the opening....does ur opening recommend it in main or in some lines?
10YearsGone wrote:
I was working through an annotated game,famous game between Paul Morphy v Duke Karl / Count Isouard and saw an amazing example of castling queenside.
Occurs on the 12th move.
That definitely was an amazing game, but Morphy was definitely on the offensive when he castled queenside. He wasn't preparing himself for a defensive game like Mcelvane is.
dmeng wrote:
10YearsGone wrote:
I was working through an annotated game,famous game between Paul Morphy v Duke Karl / Count Isouard and saw an amazing example of castling queenside.
Occurs on the 12th move.
That definitely was an amazing game, but Morphy was definitely on the offensive when he castled queenside. He wasn't preparing himself for a defensive game like Mcelvane is.
Fair enough....I'm new to this chess thing. That game just caught my eye, probably cause I've always read of the importance of castling as a defensive technique.....and was impressed by that move which managed to tuck the king away, and create an attack at the same time....I'd never considered that castling could be an offensive tool as well.
I am working on a defensive game which utilizes the longside/Queenside castle as a defense. Has anyone had much success with this type of game.