uhm?
Castling is the Worst Rule in Chess
Sort:
The people who invented the rules arguably know more about chess then most who have ever lived. I'll take their word for it.
It adds excitement. Changes up games. Other wise most games would be pretty similar-
Attack the centre. Attack the centre. Attack the centre.
No variety!
But now, we have 9 different combinations of where the King can be... In the first parts of the games alone!
And if that rule wasn't invented, people would just artificially castle. Taking up several moves and really slowing the game down.
It adds excitement. Changes up games. Other wise most games would be pretty similar-
Attack the centre. Attack the centre. Attack the centre.
No variety!
But now, we have 9 different combinations of where the King can be... In the first parts of the games alone!
And if that rule wasn't invented, people would just artificially castle. Taking up several moves and really slowing the game down.
And chess isn't about excitement or speed- it's about thought and tactics. Castling adds a whole new depth to chess, and opens up many more possibilities- how many move sequences are devoted to stopping enemies from castling? How many interesting piece sacrifices are out there to stop castling?
Castling is a good idea. As the guy above said, either lots of moves will be wasted trying to move the king to a safe spot, or all the game will just be players shooting straight at the vulnerable open kings in the centre. Idk, maybe try playing a game where you guys don't castle ... Tell us how it goes?
@VicountVonJames
Actually I think the people who invented the rules of chess weren't great players themselves ... Or I don't know tbh, we don't even know who came up with the castling rules (or do we??)
@VicountVonJames
Actually I think the people who invented the rules of chess weren't great players themselves ... Or I don't know tbh, we don't even know who came up with the castling rules (or do we??)
I think it was standardised during the 1800s.
But compared to most people here, I'm sure they were good.
Anyway if the rules weren't good enough, I.e castling, then surely the greats of today, or FDE or whatnot should almost certainly filter that rule out? Out it has survived for 200 years.
But compared to most people here, I'm sure they were good.
Anyway if the rules weren't good enough, I.e castling, then surely the greats of today, or FDE or whatnot should almost certainly filter that rule out? Out it has survived for 200 years.
Sep 2, 2017
0
#7
castling is the most aggressive move in chess. how can you attack the enemy king when you have to worry about your own king?
I wouldn't say the most aggressive.
That is like saying a goalkeeper is the most aggressively used player on the pitch...
Of course there are exceptions- castling and putting your opponent in check, or, to keep up the football analogy, for the goalkeeper to try and hit the ball in the opposing net.
That is like saying a goalkeeper is the most aggressively used player on the pitch...
Of course there are exceptions- castling and putting your opponent in check, or, to keep up the football analogy, for the goalkeeper to try and hit the ball in the opposing net.
*opposition
Sep 2, 2017
0
#10
Without castling chess strategy would shift strongly toward aggressively attacking your opponent's King before a safety screen was built around him and much less toward developing a solid system of aggression tempered with protection.
I think that would take away from chess. But, if you're not interested in deep strategies, you might find more interest in a no-castling game of chess.
UthorPendragon wrote:
Castling doesn't do anything to help the game. It hurts the game by putting the King into a safe position early in the game. Chess would be faster and more exciting without it.
It's the only rule in chess that allows you to move two pieces at once. 
MickinMD- Thank you!
Without castling, I think you would have many more games decided by brilliant tactics. Possibly forced Mates in 4 or 5 much earlier in a game.
I don't know how many of you have read Reti's book about the evolution of chess. But Reti explains how he usually doesn't have to do ANY calculations most of the time. Chess players that are GMs have become so strategical/positional that chess has come to that.
In the 2016 Championship there were 10 draws out of 12 games! In my opinion that's BORING slow positional chess. I think chess would be much better with with more tactical sacrifices etcetera.
Sep 2, 2017
0
#14
I like this thread, and I like aravinds_II's comment about it being cool to get to move two pieces at once--that may be why the Prophet of Development, Morphy, used to love castling and open centers! How efficient to bring into play the corner posted R and temporarily remove from target one's own monarch 🙂 Of course, Morphy played games like the King's Gambit without castling, too. I like the option.
What I don't like is when people attack others by personal attacks. This is a childish behavior and is socially destructive. Instead, we can agreeably disagree with ideas--that's how we all make progress.
I can't tell if everyone else thinks the topic creator is sincere and are responding sincerely, or know he is trolling and they're attempting to reverse-troll. What's next? "It makes no sense that pawns can move 2 squares on their first move!"
Whatever argument one would use for eliminating castling would be better applied to advocating Chess960.
An incremental step towards phasing all of chess to 960 would be to begin using Chess960 as the method for settling Tie Breakers instead of blitz games etc.
Generally tie breaking is favored because the games end quickly so if need be designate them to be blitz or rapid chess960 games.
I'm not trolling. I honestly think chess has too many draws and should think about way to reduce them.
Here are two famous World Champions who thought chess needed some rule changes:
Capablanca
Fischer
Those two are good enough for me to at least have a discussion.
UthorPendragon wrote:
I honestly think chess has too many draws and should think about way to reduce them.
Too many draws?
Stalemate usually never occur in high level games.
Draw by agreement or by repetition are the most common. I don't see any reason to reduce these draws...
Castling doesn't do anything to help the game. It hurts the game by putting the King into a safe position early in the game. Chess would be faster and more exciting without it.