What would happen to chess if we removed castling?

Has anyone seriously considered this? I understand that there is some push in the community to have more decisive games. One way we are already doing this is using shorter time controls, leaving more room for mistakes. I believe that removing castling rules from chess would serve this purpose as well, among other things.

Openings would of course have to adapt to the new situation. Moving your e&d pawns to occupy the center is more dangrous when your king is stuck in the middle of the board. Yet contol of the center is something you are definitely going to need to be able to defend your uncastled king in the long run. This conflicting pressure would, I believe, encourage early attacks and tactical play leading to sharp positions. The alternative would naturally be to castle manually, but that is going to cost several moves that you may not be able to afford.

Removing castling would also simplify the rules of the chess, instead of complicating them more, like chess960, for example. Complexity of the rules is one obstacle preventing chess from attracting new players and a bigger audience.

Most of a players skill in traditional chess is easily transferable to the new game, I think. Any good player is already quite cabable of attacking an uncastled king and will surely be able to take advantage of the new situation.

Even software would be trivial to adapt. In fact, any decent chess engine should already able to analyse the opening postion, since the standard FEN notation used by UIs to specify the position for the engine saves the castling rights individually. The fen would then be:

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1
Which my houdini analysed happily. Interestingly, it considers the position to be worse for white after 1. e4 (black's best reply is c5)

easy way: abolish draws.

you lost me.

Good idea. It would be great to watch for GM level play. But for recreation, it's not necessary.

Different time controls for white and black(shorter for black) and draws are a win for black

Oh, after a while, it looks like is 1. e4 c5 is about equal, very slightly worse for black. (Like -0.05)

PaullHutchh, you are right that this change is not really necessary for recreational play, but the top players are going to have to play whatever is popular among the hobbyists, just because it is popular and we need the money it generates. So, to see GMs battling in this format, it first has to become popular among the average players.

Anyway, it would be awesome if a strong player gave us some input on whether this change would improve the game or not.

Let's just quit playing chess and go back to shatranj.

Looks like a form of chauranga.

+10.  But these nutty, "what-if" threads would NEVER subside. 

In 50 years or less, opening theory would be right back where it is today. But it would make defense more difficult and probably reduce draws. Is there a way to create an online tournament starting with the aforementioned FEN?

Original Post: Honestly it would be quite interesting as a variant, and I'd love to play it, but castling should remain how it is. Things like castling and en passant are quirks/specials to chess that add flair, even if they make things "easier". Still though a no castling variant would be a breath of fresh air.

It's regressive, not progressive.

Let black have the first move.

Black moving first doesn't change anything. Black had that option up until late 19th century and the game scores are usually given with the person playing Black as if he were playing White.

Let's just shake hands.....and Thumb wrestle!!!!

Haha, that was very funny

I am sure BatGirl can amplify on this, but castling, as we know it today, has developed as a slow process over the past two or three centuries.

Originally (?) there was a legal move called the "king jump."  Castling at that time was a two-move proposition.  Later, the squares on which the King and Rook landed varied.  I am not exactly sure when the Laws of Chess were standardized for castling, but I see no reason why the rule can not further evolve.

Chess was codified during the secnd half of the 19th century. Codification was particularly necessary with the advent of international tournaments. At that time castling was defined and established as we use it today. But even into the second half of the 19th century, there were at least two methods of castling: the kind we use today and which most of Europe and America practiced at that time and a kind that was called Free Castling which was practiced in Italy and Russia (though not universally) in which the King and Rook could land on any space between them including the other's original square.  Both these types of castling came into existence in the middle of the 16th century, around the same time that the Queen (scacchi alla rabiosa) gained her powers. Medieval chess had no castling (and no en passant either since the pawns could only move one space) but had no need for any of those moves. As the power of the pieces changed, the nature of the game changed and since the King could now be attacked quite quickly from a distance in the center and both flanks, a method, other than the cumbersome one or two move King Leap used in Shatranj and Medieval chess, was developed to allow the King greater protection and to get he ponderous Rooks into the game faster.

I don't get the joke, how was that funny?? 

There is not nearly enough missplaced anger and egotism in this post.