It's too abstract a question, like everything else in chess it depends on the position. But it would certainly be worth considering this in a situation where it puts the opponent's king in danger and gives you a chance of attacking it. Uncastled doesn't always mean unsafe, and castled doesn't always mean safe, remember.
Would you sacrifice a Pawn for a anti-castling effect
Sort:
Sep 6, 2012
0
#3
What madhacker said -- it all depends.
It's more likely to make a difference early on, especially if lines are open and queens are still on the board.
I'd sacrifice my d pawn to his e pawn if I had a rook on e1 and he had his king on e8 and queen on e7.
I'd say your opponent not being able to castle is compensation for a pawn. Not in every situation though. In a situation where your ahead in development and his king is still in the center then I'd be looking for any type of sac that would work.
Sep 6, 2012
0
#6
I like my king in the center, it is ballsy.
I always accept a pawn if i cant see a direct refutation of taking it, even if my enemy's attack is very strong. Bring it on!
That being said, I like to sacrifice too if i see a direct refutation, or if my attack will be very strong. Charge!
Hello
just wondering if you were in the position would you sacrifice a pawn to make it so your opponet can't castle and would you take a free pawn even though you will not be able to castle after this?