this was in a tourney game
it was a thematic tournament but still, his king wasn't castled
Thekid456, the starting position to the game was a horrible defensive position for black. You basically got to start the game with a free knight and the queen placing the king in check. On move 1 you got to place the king in check, force it out of position, and get a free knight. Theme games like that where the other side has no chance to defend obviously don't count.
Because of the theme's positioning you were guaranteed a free knight, the king in check, your queen positioned, and about all that black could've done differently to delay the inevitable would've been to move the queen to d7 instead, which would've just resulted in you making the same move and forcing them to sacrifice their queen for the knight on d6. You were basically guaranteed a +12 advantage there because of the tournament theme. Doesn't count.
Because of the theme's positioning you were guaranteed a free knight, the king in check, your queen positioned, and about all that black could've done differently to delay the inevitable would've been to move the queen to d7 instead, which would've just resulted in you making the same move and forcing them to sacrifice their queen for the knight on d6. You were basically guaranteed a +12 advantage there because of the tournament theme. Doesn't count.
@Jzyehoshua
Castling is overrated a bit. You are right in the sence that castling is not obligatory and you should always think before just blindly castling. For the begginers you are taught a basic rule to 'castle at any cost', which is not right.
At the same time, most of the positions need a safe king, and a king in the middle is not safe unless the centre is closed. You can sometimes start and attack with h4-h5 (or h5-h4) when it is not about castling or not, but rather whose attack is faster, yours on the flank or his in the middle.
So average style players (including me) like to castle to coordinate their forces. You prefer to have a different kind of coordination (attacking one). It does not lose or win itself, it is a strategic decision. The way you do it I see it as objectvly wrong. Sometimes it is ok, but you seem to do it always. And therefore, with the right play I can punish you. But not by mating you, but abusing your coordination. Your Rh8 e.g. is good for attacking, but bad for defending the other flank. Your king can be checked to gain a tempo. If you attack to hard, you will have a lot of positional weaknesses, if you don't attack your forces will be clumped (your king is in the way!). So using all of this I, as a strong player, can use it positionally (not tacticly) to win against you. But here lies the issue, you have to be strong. If you are not strong enough it is a crazy, different, but nessesarly 'wrong' play
Castling is overrated a bit. You are right in the sence that castling is not obligatory and you should always think before just blindly castling. For the begginers you are taught a basic rule to 'castle at any cost', which is not right.
At the same time, most of the positions need a safe king, and a king in the middle is not safe unless the centre is closed. You can sometimes start and attack with h4-h5 (or h5-h4) when it is not about castling or not, but rather whose attack is faster, yours on the flank or his in the middle.
So average style players (including me) like to castle to coordinate their forces. You prefer to have a different kind of coordination (attacking one). It does not lose or win itself, it is a strategic decision. The way you do it I see it as objectvly wrong. Sometimes it is ok, but you seem to do it always. And therefore, with the right play I can punish you. But not by mating you, but abusing your coordination. Your Rh8 e.g. is good for attacking, but bad for defending the other flank. Your king can be checked to gain a tempo. If you attack to hard, you will have a lot of positional weaknesses, if you don't attack your forces will be clumped (your king is in the way!). So using all of this I, as a strong player, can use it positionally (not tacticly) to win against you. But here lies the issue, you have to be strong. If you are not strong enough it is a crazy, different, but nessesarly 'wrong' play
here is an example of how I do it.
#1 is as you have shown it, you attack hard the enemy king and then you don't have the time to castle and it is just a sharp game.
#2 lichess.org/JnaniM05KYlP
First I did not castle bcs it did not have priority. Later there was no need to castle, since i did not improve my position. But this is an exception, and most of the times castling does improve your position, and then you should do it objectivly
#1 is as you have shown it, you attack hard the enemy king and then you don't have the time to castle and it is just a sharp game.
#2 lichess.org/JnaniM05KYlP
First I did not castle bcs it did not have priority. Later there was no need to castle, since i did not improve my position. But this is an exception, and most of the times castling does improve your position, and then you should do it objectivly
Kasparov regarding castling: "Your King's safety is your number #1 priority". Certain structures demand castling while others don't. Castling - in general - is very useful, as it gets your king safer and coordinates your pieces. When the safety isn't really an issue (i.e., for when all heavy pieces come off very early in the opening), castling becomes less important.
Plain and simple tho, esp. for inexperienced players; if you don't really know what to do and your king isn't castled, just castle.
Plain and simple tho, esp. for inexperienced players; if you don't really know what to do and your king isn't castled, just castle.
@Jzyehoshua 2000-2100 lichess rapid is like 1600-1800 OTB, I wouldn't consider such a player to be "strong".
To Strategymaster, I agree that castling is sometimes needed, and I didn't want to give the sense that it's entirely irrelevant. I would guess I do castle around 40% of the time.
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. This is the 2nd to last game I played (I'll include our rematch as well-kudos to DingleyDangley by the way for beating me in it, he managed to avoid my position-closing tactics and win). 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.
Position closing works best with a pair of side-by-side pawns per move 2. Once the enemy pawn advances, it allows the pawn risking a sacrifice to advance, as I do on move 3. Black still has the alternative, of course, to move to c5, but white can still control the center with c3, and defend against a bishop advance with a3 afterwards.
Note also how attempts by black to break through are thwarted by moving blocking pieces to areas where they are covered by pawns. On move 8 for example, black attacks on b4, only to be blocked by a knight that sacrifices itself to further chain together pawns into a structure. The white king stays back behind this closed position until move 28.
The strength of closed positions is that the enemy's own pieces get used against them, they block opposing pieces from being able to move. On move 11, for example, the black queen is blocking the c6 knight from moving, which in turn is blocking the e7 knight from moving. All the while, the white king stays safely out of any enemy attack lanes, protected by black's own central pawns and bishop which keep black pieces from converging on the king's e lane position.
Again, kudos to DingleyDangley for getting past my position-closing tactics in this game. I succeeded in closing the position once again by move 7. Note how on move 2 I used an undesirable f pawn coupled with the d3 pawn to advance. I actually probably should've taken the e5 pawn on move 3 to force a queen exchange and bring their king out of cover, and THEN closed to e6, a blunder on my part. I probably also blundered on move 8, by pushing my pawns too rapidly without first positioning the knight to h6 (probably with h5 preceding to avoid the bishop taking on h6) then f7 to back a pawn advance.
But again though, DingleyDangley did a good job on capitalizing on the most minor of my positioning errors to cause me long-term problems which I compounded on 35 kg6 by backing my king into a losing position-I should've been more careful there.
My point being, however, that it is possible to get an advantageous closed position if one knows what they're doing by selectively advancing pawns and forcing undesirable sacrifices for opponents, and if not, then castling is needed.
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. This is the 2nd to last game I played (I'll include our rematch as well-kudos to DingleyDangley by the way for beating me in it, he managed to avoid my position-closing tactics and win). 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.
Position closing works best with a pair of side-by-side pawns per move 2. Once the enemy pawn advances, it allows the pawn risking a sacrifice to advance, as I do on move 3. Black still has the alternative, of course, to move to c5, but white can still control the center with c3, and defend against a bishop advance with a3 afterwards.
Note also how attempts by black to break through are thwarted by moving blocking pieces to areas where they are covered by pawns. On move 8 for example, black attacks on b4, only to be blocked by a knight that sacrifices itself to further chain together pawns into a structure. The white king stays back behind this closed position until move 28.
The strength of closed positions is that the enemy's own pieces get used against them, they block opposing pieces from being able to move. On move 11, for example, the black queen is blocking the c6 knight from moving, which in turn is blocking the e7 knight from moving. All the while, the white king stays safely out of any enemy attack lanes, protected by black's own central pawns and bishop which keep black pieces from converging on the king's e lane position.
Again, kudos to DingleyDangley for getting past my position-closing tactics in this game. I succeeded in closing the position once again by move 7. Note how on move 2 I used an undesirable f pawn coupled with the d3 pawn to advance. I actually probably should've taken the e5 pawn on move 3 to force a queen exchange and bring their king out of cover, and THEN closed to e6, a blunder on my part. I probably also blundered on move 8, by pushing my pawns too rapidly without first positioning the knight to h6 (probably with h5 preceding to avoid the bishop taking on h6) then f7 to back a pawn advance.
But again though, DingleyDangley did a good job on capitalizing on the most minor of my positioning errors to cause me long-term problems which I compounded on 35 kg6 by backing my king into a losing position-I should've been more careful there.
My point being, however, that it is possible to get an advantageous closed position if one knows what they're doing by selectively advancing pawns and forcing undesirable sacrifices for opponents, and if not, then castling is needed.
at my level, even with many years of experience of playing closed positions and the knowledge i've accumulated regarding how to deal with king safety, I castle in the first 10-15 moves roughly 95% of the time. occasionally getting a win against a clueless opponent by playing your setup and throwing your pawns at them after blocking the center will turn out to be not nearly enough for you to be able to say castling is "overrated." play that against an opponent who knows what he's doing and you're screwed.
also learn some openings, since opening knowledge can give concrete middlegame strategies so you don't have to improvise an attack "strategy" which will turn out to be ineffective nonetheless.
also learn some openings, since opening knowledge can give concrete middlegame strategies so you don't have to improvise an attack "strategy" which will turn out to be ineffective nonetheless.
I will also mention that, in the 2nd game above, had I correctly forced a queen exchange on move 3, it would've set up the board perfectly for castling queenside since the rook would then have an open lane to attack with. So in such cases castling does work perfectly with an offensive style, and doesn't delay one's tempo at all.
As I initially said, there is a time and place for castling, but recklessly early castling plays right into an aggressive opponent's hands.
As I initially said, there is a time and place for castling, but recklessly early castling plays right into an aggressive opponent's hands.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.