How much is Castling Worth?

How many pawns is the right to castle worth, all other things being equal?

Obviously it’s worth something. Is there a consensus on this? How much would you sacrifice to keep the right to castle? How much to take that right away from someone else?

depends on the position, in some cases it is a mistake to castle because instead it would be better to activate your king for the endgame, so I don't think that any value can be assigned since the position matters so much 

it really depends on the position here are two examples

i have heard that in general the right to castle is worth roughly 1 pawn. i certainly treat it so - often times 2 pawns for right to castle if i can get a little pressure.

yeah, castling is not always a good thing... If there's a bishop positioned on the diagonal, you're just asking for trouble!  I've just recently hit two great check mates thanks to the inadvertent timing of my opponents castling!

If your king isn't safe then you are likely to lose material or get mated. What's that worth?

95% of the time when u castle u arn't castling away from a direct threat. I usualy castle because I want my king in a safter position later in the game.

I’m really looking for a more specific answer here. Obviously it is good to castle if you can and obviously it depends on the situation. It always depends on the situation. What I’m asking is much more specific:

How much is castling worth?

The kind of answer I’m looking for isn’t just “everything if you lose.” It would be more along the lines of, “It’s generally worth at least a pawn, unless one of your knight pawns has moved. Here’s why…” or something of that nature. Basically I want to hear a more broad explanation of what you gain and lose by taking away an opponent’s right to castle and why.

I think you will find the consensus among higher rated players is that King safety is one of your top priorities in the opening.

Most established openings have you castle early and those that don’t are notable exceptions. All the major openings I’ve studied (the French, Scotch and Italian Openings) place an emphasis on castling within the first few moves.

Castling is about 1) King Safety 2) Developing that rook.

If your king is stuck in the center and it can be harassed then you are in trouble.

How much trouble depends on how open you are. The time spent reacting to the

enemy's threats wastes your time and usually helps him as his pieces begin to

coordinate around your king. If one could get such a speculative position for

the cost of a pawn then it's a good investment. Note that if the queens are off

the board then the king is much safer in the center files than he would be

otherwise but you have to consider the specific position. 

I agree that usually castling is good early because it can help you win by allowing you to protect your king and more importantly it allows you to move out your rooks early for use in your game.  Sometimes as stated it can also trap your king in the corner.  It also is good to castle to the opposite side as your opponent.  Sometimes it is good to castle later. And lastly it always always depends on position.

You really can't put an exact value on castling.  In some games castling is not advantagous.  In other games, castling makes the difference between a playable middle game/end game or a loss.  So it is position dependent.  It could have a value of anywhere from zero (or I suppose even negative if it was a bad move) to dozens of points, depending on the position.

If this helps to answer your question, from the opening position, I myself would be willing to give up a pawn or two if my opponent couldn't castle.  I don't think many players would be willing to sacrifice even a minor piece (a knight or a bishop) if their opponent forfiets castling rights.  So castling is probably worth a pawn or two in the inital position.  

Occasionally I sacrifice a knight or a bishop for the opponent's king bishop pawn, forcing the enemy king to capture the piece with the king or lose the pawn outright.  Most players take the knight (or bishop), gaining the material and forfeiting castling priveliges.  Usually I lose when I make this sacrifice, but then again, I usually lose anyway.  But it does make for a fun game.

When a Player says out loud to everyone " I never castle at all or rarely castle my King" if his or her opponents are out there listening their going to always aim their pieces from move 1 in the direction of the e1 or e8 square they'll know exactly where to hit him or her serious you never want a reputation among other Chess Players for not securing your King unless you enjoy being checkmated alot.

For me I would almost always give up a pawn to castle. I would give up a pawn to keep my opponent from castling every time.

Castling is a move, not worth anything. King safety is worth something, though, and giving up castling to win a pawn is fine.

So there seems to be disagreement. Some think the right to castle is worth a pawn or more and others thing that a pawn is more valuable.

Castling does usually make the king safer, but the weird thing is that I have trouble attacking a king in the center sometimes!

but if you try to mate the king that way, he could just castle right when your about to strike the center and then be safe. I would only do that if my opponent couldn't castle anymore or if castling would actually make the king less safe.

I would say the right to castle is worth the equivalent of giving your opponent doubled pawns, or the tempi it takes to artificial castle. The right to castle on either side is worth the equivalent of double the right to castle, if you observe and choose wisely. A boungcloud attack is a complication that makes it hard to determine whether it is worth more, less, or equal points in comparison with castling.