yes, most of the beginner's strategy books i've read have discussed the strategy of not castling. From what I gather, its plausible in a closed game (where the center is locked up with pawns). In a closed game the kings aren't as vulernable in the middle. Therefore you can put your king in a safe spot and connect your rooks on the back rank by moving your king to a safe square on the second rank.
Any thoughts?
What about gaining an attacking tempo, is that a plus? Also if you're the one doing the attacking your king's safety isn't that important - or am I talking rubbish?
the maneuver of castling is the most dangerous of all moves
Wow, strong words.
Sometimes the strategy works. However, a lot of times it doesn't, for reasons concerning harmony:
If your king is in the center, it's pretty darn hard to get your rooks coordinated. You might get your g4-g5 push with the king not being there; one problem -- your a1 rook will not be able to have anything to do with it :)
Secondly, it's often a pain in the ass to constantly worry about the center opening up, or your opponent pinning one of your pieces on the e file -- a lot of times you are spending so much time making sure the center doesn't get blown open that you find you have little time to attack the king.
Still, sometimes it works, and it all depends on the specifics; I just want to let you know of the dangers, and how I believe that it is so much easier to castle too late than it is to castle too early, even though both can be problematic.
He was probably exaggerating, but I can't agree with how strongly Lombardy put his statement. Actually, having a castled king is often what makes an attack possible, because you get full coordination of the pieces, and don't have to worry about any tactics based on blowing open the center.
What is often ignored is that castling is a development move. It brings a rook into play. If a rook is well-placed on its initial square there isn't much reason to castle to that side.
It's a good point, except that castling would connect the rooks, thereby having them defend each other (making it harder for the opponent to gain time or utilize a tactical idea based on undefended rooks), and helping them work together. If a rook is placed well on the h file, it still often pays to at least castle on the queenside, so that the other rook can assist it.
Everything works great until it doesn't. Everything is contextual. Castling at the right time can save your life, and at the wrong time can get you mated faster (usually checkmated, occassionally romantically mated... the latter being more of an exception than the rule). Hard and fast rules are a good way to get into trouble. (Again, I'm referring to chess and not romance, however, the maxim may also apply to romance).
The true master (I know about true mastery -- I've seen movies about real masters) know the rules, and use them when they fit, but at the same time are fluid with the tactics. Bruce Lee, for example... the priority was going with the Tao or something like that ... living in the moment. Knowing when to break or disregard the rules.
Now go forth and master the great game of Chess!
I NEVER castle. if i castle i Lose
I dont know about the king being in the center in closed games but i always try to castle before move 10
I have recently been experimenting with the idea of leaving the king in the middle - at least till well in the middlegame.
The advantages are:
1. A pawn storm to the opponent's castled king will be backed by the Rook.
2. You gain an attacking tempo.
3. At the opening game you don't always know which side your king will be safer.
I have had some success with this theory, mainly agaisnt opponents who were overwhelmed by my attack and blundered (I blundered plenty too
).
Any thoughts? Has this been discussed anywhere?