Is Castling Overrated?

I've noticed that I get the majority of my wins without ever castling. In my opinion, a good enough pawn structure/positioning early can solidify a center well enough that a King can just stay in the middle or, if necessary, move a few squares to get out of coming danger. Some recent examples:



Yes, black made a questionable move in the above game on move 24. They no doubt saw me setting up mate with f6 followed by h8, and facing a 3 minute time disadvantage acted recklessly. However, I'd moved my king into a surprisingly defensible position using their own d3 pawn to obstruct and delay them, while they in castling found themselves vulnerable due to my rapid advance on the wings.

Here's another recent example:



Note that white opts to castle right away, whereas I prioritize development and piece advancement/positioning. I am able to break down their defense successfully before they can cause me problems.

Now, is there a time and place for castling? Yes, when to do so gets one out of a dangerous situation, there is no better move available, and to do is in the safest direction where doing so will not hinder an attack on the enemy's king. However, too many players castle early because it's the classical approach and in doing so delay their development, move right into the path of an oncoming attack, and give away their king's location for easy targeting.

Which leads me to my question: is castling overrated?

I will mention that I have seen GMs who can perfectly meld their castling moves into attack patterns seamlessly, timing their castling precisely. However, it does require timing and care to make sure one goes to the right side without compromising one's defensive structure. Too many players treat castling like a quick go-to option when actually I think it should be more of a last resort, as it does not produce piece advancement and can give away one's position early.

It's not that easy. Sometimes GMs win games quickly because they don't castle and sometimes they lose within a couple of moves because they don't get castled.

Recommendations for the inexperienced: better get castled!

In the first game your uncastled king was a major weakness, which led, in part, to your lost position. However, when your opponent one-move blunders his queen that doesn't matter so much.

In the second, you also give your opponent a much better position by not castling (or developing early enough) and blundering f7. But White defends poorly and thus gets mated.

So objectively in each of these games you were lost, in part, due to your decision not to castle. Both of them look like an argument for castling to me...

It depends on the type of position. Generally I think you should always castle. However if the position is closed sometimes you can afford not to.

It also depends on the opening and its positions. If it is a closed position, you can probably get away with not castling. But if it is a sharp game with each side pushing all of their pawns on one half of the board, it would be more risky to stay uncastled.

@Jzyehoshua In both games you were completely lost, so I agree with @Rrhyddhad on this one. In the first game white's play was horrible, there is no way you could get away with that against a strong player.

yeah usually you should castle

To Rrhyddhad, I don't think the positions were lost to the extent you think. In game 1, for example, which probably looked worst:

* By the controversial move 24, black was in a dangerous position. Yes, they could have advanced the d pawn, but it would have taken three turns to affect me, two to turn the pawn into the queen, and another to put me in check with it.
* I only needed two turns by contrast to checkmate their king. f6 followed by h8. Even if the bishop sacrificed itself for a pawn I would still be positioned for the checkmate.
* They couldn't place me in check on d2 without removing the bishop first. The rook couldn't place me in check on e2 without being taken by the knight. The queen couldn't place me in check on either f5 or g5 because of the bishop/queen combo.
* All of this left one avenue for a queen check, d5, which would awkwardly position the queen. A simple move of the king to f2 and all of the positioning issues come quickly to light. A bishop check on d4 results in the king eating the black rook. The rook going to e2 results in the king taking both the rook and pawn. The black queen moving to the e column gives a free move to endanger the bishop and get one move closer to mate.
* In summary, this position may look bad from first glance, but actually created all kinds of positioning dilemmas for black.

In game 2:

* White had no clear path to mate or even check on move 11 despite the strange positioning. The white knight on c3 was awkwardly stuck, blocking its own rook from bothering the king, and couldn't move to b5 or a4 because of my d2 bishop. The white bishop could move to b8 trying to set up a c7 checkmate by the queen, but this would of course be prevented easily with a rook move to c6, further defending the king. This could then be followed by b6 with my pawn and my king to b7, forcing the white bishop to retreat and allowing a full attack to begin on the white king with an advancing, well-defended black king.
* In essence white would have had a tough road trying to exchange enough pieces to find a road to my king, with every possible attack only cementing a more defensible position and further exposing white's vulnerable kingside castling position where only a single knight stood to stop the advance, a knight which was inconveniently blocking its own rook.

To noobforlife, in the first game, the player was rated 2079, so when you say "there is no way you could get away with that against a strong player" how do you define a strong player?