Go back
Castling - kingside vs queenside

Castling - kingside vs queenside

Only Chess

c

Joined
23 May 08
Moves
618
Clock
30 Jul 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Is there an advantage to castling on the kingside rather than the queenside?

My chess club teacher at school always is disappointed when he cant castle kingside.

w
If Theres Hell Below

We're All Gonna Go!

Joined
10 Sep 05
Moves
10228
Clock
30 Jul 08
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

depends on the position. sometimes neither is good and you should leave the king in the center.

the basic advantage of castling short instead of long, is that it takes one move less.

S

Joined
14 Jul 06
Moves
20541
Clock
30 Jul 08
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

9 times out of 10 I castle KS.
The wing pawn on the QS castle is often a weakness & you lose a tempo sometimes moving you K across.
I sometimes choose to castle QS if by doing so the rook covers an open or 1/2 open file. This is a common strategy & makes good sense.
(sorry if my post doesn't - I've had a couple 😉)

FL

Joined
21 Feb 06
Moves
6830
Clock
30 Jul 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wormwood
the basic advantage of castling short instead of long, is that it takes one move less.
I'm not sure what you mean by that?

Castling queenside is less common for several reasons:

1) There is one extra piece (the queen) in the way of the king and rook, so it's more difficult to clear the path between them.

2) The king ends up on c1 or c8, where it does not defend the queen's rook pawn which is generally still on a2 or a7. This means that you often have to waste another move moving the king to b1 or b8.

3) It is often said that it easier to attack a king which has castled queenside because there is "a larger area to attack". I've never know quite what this means, but something similar is stated in many beginners' books.

s

Joined
12 Feb 05
Moves
47202
Clock
30 Jul 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
9 times out of 10 I castle KS.
The wing pawn on the QS castle is often a weakness & you lose a tempo sometimes moving you K across.
I sometimes choose to castle QS if by doing so the rook covers an open or 1/2 open file. This is a common strategy & makes good sense.
(sorry if my post doesn't - I've had a couple 😉)
You've castled queenside against me in 2 out of 2 games.

Why am I so lucky?

w
If Theres Hell Below

We're All Gonna Go!

Joined
10 Sep 05
Moves
10228
Clock
30 Jul 08
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Fat Lady
1) There is one extra piece (the queen) in the way of the king and rook,
which means castling takes one move more than castling kingside. as far as I can see, it's the only basic difference if we ignore the position. in isolation, taking a tempo less must be an advantage, right?

greenpawn34

e4

Joined
06 May 08
Moves
43363
Clock
30 Jul 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

It really does depend on what's happening on the board.

Castling Q-side has aggresive undertones because the Rook
is brought to a central square in one move - this is countered
by the King after 0-0-0 being exposed on the diagonal.

When 0-0-0 always (if you can spare the time ) shift the King along to b1 or b8.
Many a check along the open diagonal has ruined a game.

I'm sure every experienced player here can post a game lost
to a check after 0-0-0 (Fat Lady most likely has dozens).

I have one that was still pops into my head even when I'm not
thinking about chess - oh the pain...

Good advice that - but you won't heed it. Nobody does. I didn't.

Then one day, after you have 0-0-0 BANG! you miss
check on the exposed diagonal - lesson learned.

Castle on the side you think your King will be safer on.

and remember,

"Castle because you must - not because you can." Richard Reti

MR

Joined
19 Jun 06
Moves
847
Clock
30 Jul 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by chejrw
Is there an advantage to castling on the kingside rather than the queenside?

My chess club teacher at school always is disappointed when he cant castle kingside.
Another disadvantage of castling QS is that the c-pawn is only protected by the king. (With KS castling, the f-pawn is protected by both the king and rook.)

So with QS castling, you have to evaluate the disadvantages of needing to protect the a- and c-pawns adequately with the possible advantage of getting to put your rook on an open file. Also, sometimes castling QS is required to escape a potential or existing enemy attack.

FL

Joined
21 Feb 06
Moves
6830
Clock
30 Jul 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I'm sure every experienced player here can post a game lost
to a check after 0-0-0 (Fat Lady most likely has dozens).
I don't think I've lost a dozen games of any sort in my entire thirty years of playing chess, let alone dozens to a check after castling long. The last time I lost a game was six years ago when I was knocked over by a car on my way to a match and had to play the entire game whilst in a coma, and even then I nearly swindled him in time trouble.

greenpawn34

e4

Joined
06 May 08
Moves
43363
Clock
30 Jul 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Get Well Soon.

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
Clock
31 Jul 08
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Usually I only castle queenside as black and that's because I've used my kingside pawns to attack after white has castled kingside. By castling queenside I'm able to quickly bring my queen's rook into play putting additional pressure on the opposing king.

One other thing, I just defeated my GNU-4.0 for the first time ever and it castled queenside. Just sayin'.

S

Joined
14 Jul 06
Moves
20541
Clock
31 Jul 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by schakuhr
You've castled queenside against me in 2 out of 2 games.

Why am I so lucky?
...& one of those went fabulously well for me 🙄
Game 5214730

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.