there are a couple of lines in the Benko gambit accepted where white ends up castling by hand due to exchanging bishops on f1 and recapturing with the king (gets a better pawn structure and removes blacks control of that diagonal, but loses a couple of tempo).
other than that, i can't think of any openings where either side would forfeit castling?
Sometimes in closed openings the center can be the safest place for the king, because simply pieces cannot get through the center. One such notable opening is the french.
You'll see some of that in the Traxler Counterattack in the Two Knights Defense, but the theory there is a madman's game.
Thanks for your answers. I'm interested in playing around with some very risky but solid openings. Nothing is more risky than giving up castling rights when you don't have to or moving your queen out early when you don't have to. I will look at the Benko gambit and other gambits as well. Steev, madman and mayhem are what I'm interested in right now. Seems like fun.
Risky and solid are two words that usually doesn't go to well together, you wan't something solid and risky? I thought the whole definition of something solid was that it's not risky, and vice versa?
1. Nc3 depending on what your opponent plays against it. It can lead to a type of scandinavian where white just moves his king over to the queenside instead of castling.
some lines of king's gambit, where black plays Qh4 +, and white moves king.
I have studied that that it ends up very bad for black. It's played 1.e4, e5, f4, exf4 and then Bc4 isn't it.
Yes rich that is correct. Normally, white plays 3. Nf3 which prevents the queen checking on h4. However, Fischer (i think) preferred to play Bc4 first (before Nf3). You are correct, black can end up in a real mess - possibly losing the queen as it gets trapped by white's pawns and minor pieces.
a few players have revitalised the king's gambit recently - Spassky in the 1970's and Joe Gallagher and I think Nigel Short aswell more recently.
either way, it is my standard reply as white to e4 e5.
I will reveal no more regarding my opening repetoire in an open forum!!!!!!!!!
It's common in the French defense, either in the McCutheon or in the Winawer variation where white plays Qg4 and Black replies with Kf8 to avoid weakening the g-pawn if Black opts not to sacrifice it.
The variation 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3. Nf3 is not as popular as 3. Bc4. In Christoph Scheerer's book, The Greatest Ever Chess Opening Ideas, 2008, he goes so far as to say, "White's best try for a win is with 3. Bc4.
Risky and solid are two words that usually doesn't go to well together, you wan't something solid and risky? I thought the whole definition of something solid was that it's not risky, and vice versa?
I agree. To me, solid means "mistakes have relatively small consequences" and risky means "mistakes have relatively large consequences".
Unless he wants an opening that's solid for him and risky for the opponent. Assuming his opponent plays normal moves, that just doesn't happen.
Risky and solid are two words that usually doesn't go to well together, you wan't something solid and risky? I thought the whole definition of something solid was that it's not risky, and vice versa?
I agree. To me, solid means "mistakes have relatively small consequences" and risky means "mistakes have relatively large consequences".
Unless he wants an opening that's solid for him and risky for the opponent. Assuming his opponent plays normal moves, that just doesn't happen.
I can see where that might be confusing. Let me make myself a little more clear. I think that most of the gambit lines are risky but solid. You are in effect gambling away material for position or development. You play those lines confident that you will regain your material later no worse off than if you hadn't gambled it in the first place. All of chess takes correct play to win, but the gambit lines require more attention to correct lines in order to win. I think that's risky but with correct play it's still solid. I have been messing around with the kings gambit and I like it. It's risky though. Generally, best advice for white is to not mess with f-pawn in the opening. The kings gambit challenges that advice and with correct play, white can come out on top. Risky opening, but still it can be quite solid for white. I'm still learning it though. I guess I'm finding out that I like to take calculated risks. There are other openings in which white gives up 2 pawns for quick development. That's risky at best, but with correct play, white can still win. I guess I'm beginning to experiment with chess now.
I want to move my king just to tell my opponent, "If the king does not lead, how can he expect his subordinates to follow," All Hail Lelouch!!
I've played the Mason Gambit many times; the main line runs: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nc3 Qh4+ 4 Ke2.
old mainline portugese gambit in the scandinavian offers black gives up castling rights but if white accepts the black rooks enter insanely fast. 1 e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. d4 Bg4 4. f3 Bf5 5. c4 e6 6. d5xe6 Nc6 then if 7. e6xf7 Kxf7 and black will bring his black bishop usually to b4 then the h8 rook quickly comes to e8 and since white is so underdeveloped he usually gets mated
Are there any openings in which white or black deliberately chooses to forfeit castling rights and move the king? Not because of a checking move by the opponent, but because it's actually a good idea for the particular opening. Just wondering.
Thanks.