lichess.org
Donate

Is Castling Overrated?

in my opinion, castling early is anything but reckless, it is a useful precautionary measure which at the same time opens up new avenues of development for your pieces. for example, kingside castling supports f4/f5 pushes (as it brings a rook to the f file) or may allow maneuvers like Nf6-e8-d6/c7 or Qd8-e8-h5/g6

as for the claim that "there is a time and place for castling," at (what i presume to be) your level, if you see your opponent has prepared an attack on one side, counterattack in the center after castling on the other side.
I kind-of get a sense you're not really wanting input, but moreover you want to drive home your point of that not-castling is better in closed positions. Let's be clear; castling IS important, definetly at lower levels.

You show us 'examples' where you didn't castle, and got away with it. Just to make a point; your last game (against sambibo), you lost because you didn't give your king enough safety. Allowing a relatively closed-up position to get opened and giving your opponent easy access to your king.

Closed positions are almost never really closed, there are always breakthroughs to be made and that is why your king needs to be somewhat safe.

I've tried reading your post in #18 a couple of times, and still don't understand what you're trying to say.

"You're also right that it requires a definitely closed position to get away with not castling. I guess the reason I don't need to castle is probably related to my skills at closing positions. [...] I don't normally cover my tactics on closing positions because it's a major difference-maker between myself and opponents, but I will point out that it is quite possible to close positions at will, as seen from the following game."

Sorry to break it to you, but you are being somewhat delusional. I'm trying to follow it; but the game you show isn't closed down whatsoever. I'm telling you, you should castle more and get your king in safety. By castling more you also get more dynamic options with your other pieces.

Like I said in #16, castling is important when king safety is necessary. By not castling, you give your opponent a lot of easier breakthroughs towards an open and unprotected king.
Repeating my number 3:

Delaying castling is playing with the fire. Even GMs burn from time to time. It‘ll take you many years of absorbing tons of chess to develop a feeling. Moreover, chess games are often decided by minute details. It depends very much on the concrete position. For example, Aronian shoulda better not have castled so early when playing Kramnik. ...Rg8 ...g5 and 0:1 in that particular line.

I think there‘s more to lose than to win by a general „castling is for sissies“ approach.

Is casling over-rated ? yes , it is. But the games on #1 are not good examples . In first game , both 24...d2! and 24... Rxc1 wins ( TBH finding the win after Rxc1 is vey hard ) . The win after Rxc1 is very complex , but after d2 , it is easy to see it is trivial win . Black wins at least a piece ( TBH Win more ) with this pawn , and white cant play f6 because of Qxg5 .
I would certainly advice all my opponents to never castle early.
I enjoy that a lot. :) Even though I'm rather a positional player, whenever that happens, I'm thinking about all kinds of sacrifices in the center - it's fun.

The previous comments - as far as I understood them - restricted to the special case of positions with a closed center. Of course it depends on the opening repertoire. But imo that's rather the exception.

Also it can easily happen that you think you have time to castle
and can do it later, and then stumble into a series of mini threats, tempo moves, tactical tricks, pins etc. when eventually not having castled turns out to be a major problem.

One example of my own games.

Lol @ the games in the OP. How are those an argument for not castling
Development. Get your rooks out. Castling assists in this.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.