My friend paulbuchmanfrom fics stated at another thread the folowing:
"Eekbot once asked me "Why do you take forever to castle in a lot of your games?" I didn't realise I was doing it, but I explained that with a closed center it is hard for my opponent to come up with a plan. By castling early, you give him a target. Attacking the king in his new nest, can easily turn into an entire middlegame plan. I would generally wait and see where the bulk of pieces were aimed and castle the other way. I think he kind of understood what I was talking about. It's not a great lesson, but it did give him something to think about. Stuff like this, you have to have explained (or possibly read). An engine will never break down not castling like that. (Of course it doesn't fear "attacks" to start with."
Chess is fine because it's unique! My strategy over here is different and it goes like this:
We castle in order to reinforce our defense and because we have to ease the coop of our pieces. And we can attack solely when we have obtained an advantage (material/ positional) at the targeted area, or when there is not there sufficient defense or when we are at least equal at the centre. Therefore, our early struggle for the centre can help us obtain these aims. And this strategy/ development permits us to follow this tactic, therefore it is irrelevant where exactly the enemy King will finally go.
However, if the enemy King remain in the centre, it is the opponent who has the problem and not our army, because we will anyway push at the e file; we will always target the soft spots f2/ f7 and, sometimes, we may hinder the opponent to 0-0 or 0-0-0. In this case, no matter where the enemy King will castle, if we can attack we will keep up by means of trying to open lines/ to transfer more forces/ to cause differ damages to the enemy defence/ to refuse to exchange our strong pieces/ to push to exchange our less strong pieces/ to gain at least some material. Of course, if the enemy King is stuck in the middle, he is our main aim.
All the above is the reason why I prefer to castle early. With the Black I almost always prefer 0-0, because this eases my defensive and my attacking strategy at the same time at my KID Scheveningen setup.
Of course the above is not an absolute "truth", it is just my personal view as I live it through my narrow window. Sure thing, I would like to hear more from you, Paul, and of course from any friend regarding this matter. Needless to add that I want to thank you, Paul, because your thoughts forced me to construct an accurate shape of my thoughts🙂
Originally posted by black beetleFor what it's worth:
My friend paulbuchmanfrom fics stated at another thread the folowing:
"Eekbot once asked me "Why do you take forever to castle in a lot of your games?" I didn't realise I was doing it, but I explained that with a closed center it is hard for my opponent to come up with a plan. By castling early, you give him a target. Attacking the king in his new nest ...[text shortened]... aul, because your thoughts forced me to construct an accurate shape of my thoughts🙂
if I think my king is safe in the center I will leave it there.This usually involves a blocked center.Three reasons:
-saves time; instead of castling you can improve another piece's position
-when an endgame is reached you often need to walk your king to the center.He would be there already!
-it often confuses the opponent as they're not used to this
OK ... Here is my best shot at what I was saying.
First of all, my advice was geared more towards the intermediate level player (not a beginner/not an expert). It also depends on his opponent being at that level too. It isn't so obvious for a player (lets say around 1600 or so) to always come up with a clear cut plan strategically. They probably know a lot of the tactical tricks of the trade, but the proper plan is harder to come by (as it is with all of us). A lot of games in this range usually continue with trading of pieces or attacking/tactics. In this sense, you are playing into their hands by castling early and giving them a target to attack. That is what I meant. It is obviously not geared at someone as strong as black beetle. It is also very general advice of the Lasker sort (Play the man not the board. etc).
As Henry Ford once said (I think), "We think in general. We live in details." Therefore, the more strategic considerations provided by black beetle make more sense. They are in fact the ideal way to play.
To be even more specific, I can't think of a game where black has castled queenside in the King's Indian or Scheveningen !!! This is yet another case of specific over general positions.
I am quite happy that I inspired some thought in my friend and happy to read his ideas.
Keep those thoughts coming !!!
Originally posted by black beetlehere is an interesting master game Beetle, in which neither side castles and in which the outcome is resolved by blacks control of the center, control of a file and whites premature and ultimately futile attempt to create counter play by opening the game up to get some counter play on the black king. If you would like the annotations Beetle, mail me and i will send them to you privately - regards Robbie.
My friend paulbuchmanfrom fics stated at another thread the folowing:
"Eekbot once asked me "Why do you take forever to castle in a lot of your games?" I didn't realise I was doing it, but I explained that with a closed center it is hard for my opponent to come up with a plan. By castling early, you give him a target. Attacking the king in his new nest ...[text shortened]... aul, because your thoughts forced me to construct an accurate shape of my thoughts🙂
why do they not castle? whites fifth move (g4!?) is an unusual developing move which makes castling kingside almost impossible, while the ensuing pawn storm means that it is dangerous for black also to castle kingside, thus with many pieces still undeveloped, it will be some time before queenside castling is possible and inevitably, it never takes place!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI knew this was a Seirawan game. I have his book with this game in it.
here is an interesting master game Beetle, in which neither side castles and in which the outcome is resolved by blacks control of the center, control of a file and whites premature and ultimately futile attempt to create counter play by opening the game up to get some counter play on the black king. If you would like the annotations Beetle, mail me ide castling is possible and inevitably, it never takes place!
Black played Kd7 because the queenside was closed so his king would be safe and more importantly it connected his rook and queen.
Originally posted by ResigningSoonYES! his King finds safety in the blocked queenside and now that his queen and rook are connected as you mention resigningsoon, it enables him to contest the open h-file.
I knew this was a Seirawan game. I have his book with this game in it.
Black played Kd7 because the queenside was closed so his king would be safe and more importantly it connected his rook and queen.
I am hoping that Beetle or anyone for that matter may analyse this game and while assimilating its contours draw some conclusions. what can we say?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am appaled with this game; how can the Black play 1. ...d6 after 1.e4? He was obviously high on skoosh. The Black would be OK! with the normal Scheveningen and he could eliminate that Keres with the standard ...h6.
YES! his King finds safety in the blocked queenside and now that his queen and rook are connected as you mention resigningsoon, it enables him to contest the open h-file.
I am hoping that Beetle or anyone for that matter may analyse this game and while assimilating its contours draw some conclusions. what can we say?
I 'm joking Rabbie, and yes, I would love to get the annotations -this time I study again some instructive games by Grivas with the opponent King in the middle, therefore Seirawan's view is every time welcomed 😵
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsThis empty skull of mine can be hardly educated; I have to push the wood all the time😵
OK ... Here is my best shot at what I was saying.
First of all, my advice was geared more towards the intermediate level player (not a beginner/not an expert). It also depends on his opponent being at that level too. It isn't so obvious for a player (lets say around 1600 or so) to always come up with a clear cut plan strategically. They pr ...[text shortened]... some thought in my friend and happy to read his ideas.
Keep those thoughts coming !!!
Originally posted by RomanticusHey Romanticus, have a good time🙂
For what it's worth:
if I think my king is safe in the center I will leave it there.This usually involves a blocked center.Three reasons:
-saves time; instead of castling you can improve another piece's position
-when an endgame is reached you often need to walk your king to the center.He would be there already!
-it often confuses the opponent as they're not used to this
Regarding the blocked centre patterns you mention, it's interesting to check that in almost every instructive game the King who remined in the middle was not safe due to the fact that it was very hard or impossible for his army to support him by means of a healthy pawn structure and of powerful defensive pieces. This is the reason why we always chase the opponent King who is stuck in the middle -move by move we create a checkmate loop.
"Saves time" for what exactly? If you mean that you are at a very early opening stage and you want that c4 for your Bishop or e2 for your NG1 with the intention to casle anyway with tempo or spending a tempo, this looks fine to me too.
However the endgame is neither opening nor middlegame, and at each phase our strategical aims are different. Furthermore, there is not the slightest chance to "confuse" the opponent when you keep your King in the middle for there are positions at which we may postpone castling until the very last move of the opening, but the strong players are aware of this aspect. I think that these players have a quite clear vision regarding the accurate final placement of the King that is required from the position, and they are ever ready to punish the inaccuracy and of course the blunder.
There are many insctructive games with the enemy King in the middle just because the opponent did not wanted to "spend" a tempo to 0-0 or 0-0-0. I think that leaving the King at the centre is a product of optimism if there are no concrete reasons (strategy/ tactics) that they back up efficiently the decision to castle not or to postpone castling. This optimism blocks the instict of danger of the chessplayer (afterall he sees no immediate threats), who suddenly finds himself into the middlegame having exchanged all his mobilized pieces whilst his King is still in the e file -the material could be still even, but his position is ruined.
Therefore, although I 'm unable to calculate during a specific phase of the opening the exact variation that it could lead to this possible outcome in case my King would be forced to be stuck in the middle, I know that this probability is ever lurking if I fail to castle on time, therefore my basic strategy forces me to Develop Through Castling the soonest possible. Also, If you check the game posted by Rabbie you will see that actually the Black overcame his inability to 0-0-0 with some tempi in order to transfer his King to a safe area😵
Hey Beetle a thousand salutations my friend! them 1.e4 ..d6 players surely must be high on the skoosh, them 1.e4 ..e6 players perhaps need some skoosh to loosen them up, anyhow, there seems to this miserable patzer that there may indeed be some valid reasons for delaying the castle. Here is interesting game by the aforementioned Efstratios Grivas, which share some interesting characteristics with the Seriwan game. You will notice this move, 11.g4, played much earlier in the Seriwan game, but never the less with the same intent! for it seems to me that the Black deliberately delays the castling because of this move which also has a historical precedent in the famous game Lasker Capablanca, Moscow 1936, where Capa also delays the castling move in order to dissuade Lasker from attempting the g4!?
Originally posted by black beetleHey Beetle,
Hey Romanticus, have a good time🙂
Regarding the blocked centre patterns you mention, it's interesting to check that in almost every instructive game the King who remined in the middle was not safe due to the fact that it was very hard or impossible for his army to support him by means of a healthy pawn structure and of powerful defensive pieces. Thi me his inability to 0-0-0 with some tempi in order to transfer his King to a safe area😵
For the record,I don't advocate refraining,or even delaying,from castling.But when I opt to do so then it's for the reasons given earlier.
These instructive games you mention.Are they meant to show a student that it's usually best to castle?Because then it's rather obvious they won't show a game where the king was safe in the middle.
If my opponent can chase my centralised king creating a checkmate loop then it means the king wasn't safe in the center.This would be an error of judgment on my part.However,it doesn't mean the king can never be safe in the middle.
It saves time to do something else.Perhaps launch a quick attack or maybe just pick up a pawn or trade down into a favorable endgame or to ruin his pawnstructure.If I cannot get some advantage then I'd definitely castle.
"However the endgame is neither opening nor middlegame, and at each phase our strategical aims are different."
I don't understand what you mean by that in light of this discussion.I'll reread it a few times,might get the point then.Foreign language,you know.
True,it won't confuse a strong player.But I can assure you it confuses the heck out of most of my OTB opponents.Probably because all the books and coaches tell them you have to castle early (and often LOL) and then when someone doesn't castle at all they're lost.
Here's an OTB game of mine where I didn't castle.Bit of counterweight to the high level games shown here 😉
After the game my opponent asked me with a puzzled look on his face: "Did you ever even consider castling at any point??"
Finally I'd like to mention that not castling happens in,maybe,1% of my games.Probably even less.
Originally posted by black beetleIn my mind there is a Karpov game where he himself forfeits the castle for a very good reason, but for the life of me i cannot remember where i followed that game. when i find it i will post it, for it was very instructive indeed!
Karpov was a mean machine😵