Originally posted by Mike Rice
Is it the percieved wisdom in chess, that castling as soon as possible is always the best option ? if so why. I have always thoight that the King is trapped in a corner and can more easily be attacked. I have won quite a few games after attacking a castled King. Although i am quite an inexperienced player
The usual stages of development is with the central pawns; then the knights; then the bishops; then castle; then rooks to central/open files. Somewhere in between, the queen might jump in. But normally early queen sortie is a waste of time.
As a general rule, develop with a view of controlling the central squares, and if possible develop with a threat because that would limit the opponent's choices of replies. Knights are usually developed first before bishops because we are more certain of their 'best' squares, i.e. c3 & f3 (controlling central squares), but bishops might have several good options.
Castling is almost always good because it is the only move in chess that can move two pieces in a single turn (rook and king), thus shuffling the king to the corner of the board and immediately connects the rooks. I don't believe that a castled king is easier to attack when compared to a king left in the middle of the board. The exception is that when the pawn barrier in front of the castled king has been compromised, for example due to h3 (in an attempt to deal with the annoying Bg4 pin).
It is also interesting to note that in some games, the theme of an attack is to disallow an enemy's king to castle at all, so that he is subject to fiece attack at a later part of the game. Check out the Thread "Tutorial Offered", where Dragon Fire sacrificed a bishop in order to prevent the enemy's king from castling. It is an instructive game that one!