Ohh, sorry! 😉 Do you have a game ID to show me because it's hard to just say: "Here is a good way" without the context of a position.
In general, if I've had to move my king I try to find a way to get into a 'castled' position whenever possible by moving my king onto the 2nd rank and sliding my rook past it. Sometimes it's ok to leave your king in the middle but it is verrrry dangerous most of the time. Pushing your a or h pawn is sometimes an option but again you have the problem of protecting your king and you've just weakend the pawn structure near your king.
Hope this helps. 🙂
Originally posted by ChessNutthank, sorry i dont have a game id to show it.
Ohh, sorry! 😉 Do you have a game ID to show me because it's hard to just say: "Here is a good way" without the context of a position.
In general, if I've had to move my king I try to find a way to get into a 'castled' position whenever possible by moving my king onto the 2nd rank and sliding my rook past it. Sometimes it's ok to leave your king ...[text shortened]... ing your king and you've just weakend the pawn structure near your king.
Hope this helps. 🙂
david
It depends a lot on what position you're in, as others have already indicated. There are certainly some situations when it's better not to have a rook in the center - if your opponent still has most of his knights and bishops your rook becomes an easy target, since a trade off of a rook for knight/bishop works in your opponents favor. Additionally, certainly openings lend themselves well to keeping rooks on back ranks or side files - for example, I often play the King's indian attack and king's indian defense - both of these openings make use of advancing a and b file pawns, and the queen's rook serves as a way to defend those pawns as they'r'e advancing.
-mike