Why is it better to castle than leaving the King where he was?

I can not see the sense in castling the king.  He is in so much more danger having been castled than left where he was.  I read an article that said young chess players are now opting not to castle their kings, as he is much easier to checkmate once castled, something I have found to be true. What do you think?

In som' cases, castling's better, in ot'ers, it's badder.

Depends on teh position an' openin', really.

I think your rating is going to stay around 1100. 

So what you are saying is that castling is entirely optional, in fact it's dependent on several other factors.  Yet every chess book I have ever read says to castle as soon as possible, no exceptions.

Thank you Dodger.  Got anything intelligent to say?

How do you connect your Rooks if you don't Castle??

I was told castling was to get the king out of danger not to connect your rooks!

It's both!

Thank you redtrucker.  I can see the sense in what you say, tuck the king away out of danger from the fast trading in the centre, then move him back to the centre once all that has taken place.  But I will say that he is in a lot of danger in the castled position in the interval between the trade offs, and later getting him back into the centre.  There is a book called "Attacking the castled king", it's a real eye-opener just how easy it is to attack him in the castled position.

I find when I leave my king in the centre it's not checkmate I get punished with but tactics (and unconnected rooks)

Journeyman_Jim wrote:

Ellie47 wrote:

 There is a book called "Attacking the castled king", it's a real eye-opener just how easy it is to attack him in the castled position.

there's also a book called "attacking the king in the center". seems like his majesty is safe nowhere. :-)

xD

Rooks is a defense out of others, his advantage is said by others players, you can try to control the center without placing king in a bad situation, now choose the good rook. Generally i don't like to ro

ok but often i must to do it

There are arguments either way. Most players concentrate their attack at the centre. However, in the corner he is just as vulnerable. Maybe...???

Castling has 2 functions.

- Makes your king safer. It is easier to attack the king in the center, because you already move your pawns in front of your king and the pieces are developed to the center. Also, the f2/f7 squares are very weak, they are only guarded by the king. When you castle, you solve these problems.

- It brings the rook into the game. 
Sometimes, for example if it is an endgame already, you may also bring your rook into the game by playing something like Ke2/Ke7, it has the same effect, but the king is nearer to the center, which is important in the endgame. 

Of course, the castled king can still be attacked. That's why you need to have pieces around your king, that defend against the attacks that come. 
 

I believe that in most cases, castling is the way to go. Sometimes, castling queenside can be a bit of a problem, but you really want to connect your rooks so that they can work together, as that can become vital to winning the game in the middle. As previously mentioned, most attacks are toward the center, and if your king is right there, you are extremely vulnerable to checkmates. Also, you are able to be attacked from all 3 sides, whereas castling only allows you to be attacked twice.

But I do not think that you should always castle as soon as possible. I have found that sometimes my opponent will castle within the first 5-6 moves, and this is generally not the best option. Now, I know exactly which side I should be attacking, so that could be bad for my opponent. You should allow some development for both players, AND THEN castle. Most my games I will castle around the 10th move, and rarely after the 15th. Castling is definitely something that most players should be using.

In closed games with locked pawns, castling may be delayed as central attacks and manuvering are hindered by the pawns. Advance French is an example.

In open games, attacks may come very fast in the center because they are unhindered by pawns. King' Gambit Accepted is an example.

Not too bright they'll get a reputation when other players who know better find out they never castle at all they'll aim their pieces straight at their King and checkmate them suit yourself young ones.

"As long as my opponent has not yet castled, on each move I seek a pretext for an offensive. Even when I realize that the king is not in danger." Mikhail Tal 

It is my firm belief that your first objective in chess is to castle ,set up a solid defence with 2 or more defending pieces ,once the defence is set you then have the opportunity to attack your opponent with the hope of making his/her king  move ,then taking away from him the opportunity to castle .

If you are struggling with king side (castled attacks ) you might want to look into the reti opening which has a great defence ,and makes it a lot easier to defend and attack simultaneously. 

The book opening for The Reti

Thanks for so much intelligent and helpful advice.  I will go on castling as I have been doing, because as you all suggest connecting the rooks is vital. Also in the centre the king is just asking to be attacked.  As was suggested, the king is not really safe anywhere, after all the whole game is based around checkmating him.  I still have so much to learn and I have to admire those amongst us who play to a very high standard. Having said that, those of us with more modest ratings are still having loads of fun on this site.  I don't mind being outsmarted, I consider myself as being on a huge learning curve, and if any improvement in my tactics or strategy should eventuate then it's all been worthwhile :)