2 edits
don't get me wrong, but you should develop some tactical skills before coming to such conclusion. at that level, almost all of the time, the opening you choose or the elementary decisions you make like castling or not, or castling queenside or kingside etc, are rather neglectible.
at 1200- (I'd even say 1600-, but not sure), if you just want to have fun, keep going. if you want to seriously improve, you should devote more than half of your "chess time" to training tactics.
Originally posted by big bernTo quote a certain Grandmaster "castle because you have to, or because you want to. Never just because you can"
if i look back at my games it seems that i have faired better when i didn't castle. Is that just because I am still trying to figure this game out or is castking done subsequent to a certain number of openings? thanks, b.
If you are just beginning, I recommend it on almost all occasions, within (say) the first dozen moves. Better opponents will soon exploit an exposed centralised King. But as another poster said, in closed positions, and in positions where rapid development is called for, it may be wiser not to. Clearly, when the side you intend to castle into is under strong attack, it is plain stupid!
Failure to castle correct side 0-0 or 0-0-0 when it is correct and safe to do so almost always will lead to quick loss of material position and or game. In certain games it is recognised that castling is incorrect in all circumstances and therefore should be avoided however, those game account for an extremely small percentage of total games playable.
Originally posted by Policestateagreed.. i don't always think castling is your best move.... it kills tempo (some times) and it kinda pinches ur king a little.... not saying not to do it though.. everyone else in this thread is about right too imo
To quote a certain Grandmaster "castle because you have to, or because you want to. Never just because you can"
If you are just beginning, I recommend it on almost all occasions, within (say) the first dozen moves. Better opponents will soon exploit an exposed centralised King. But as another poster said, in closed positions, and in positions where rapi ...[text shortened]... . Clearly, when the side you intend to castle into is under strong attack, it is plain stupid!
Originally posted by PolicestateWell answered.... If you keep playing you will see that this user was correct in his assertation... and you will find it hard to lose tempo when you're getting two moves (a king move and a rook move) for the price of one.
To quote a certain Grandmaster "castle because you have to, or because you want to. Never just because you can"
If you are just beginning, I recommend it on almost all occasions, within (say) the first dozen moves. Better opponents will soon exploit an exposed centralised King. But as another poster said, in closed positions, and in positions where rapi ...[text shortened]... . Clearly, when the side you intend to castle into is under strong attack, it is plain stupid!
*tentatively* Right???......
Originally posted by JaminI'm quickly finding that many also know how to attack a castled King also. I don't know if it's the best thing to do but I'd set up for castle and do so if it looks like your opponent is on the verge of attacking. From what I have read so far though is castle in a open game (center not blocked with pawns) and reserve castling in closed games (center blocked with pawns), because the blocked center provides some protection
Well answered.... If you keep playing you will see that this user was correct in his assertation... and you will find it hard to lose tempo when you're getting two moves (a king move and a rook move) for the price of one.
*tentatively* Right???......
Originally posted by PolicestateI remember that quote from 30 years ago.......was it from Siegbert Tarrasch?
To quote a certain Grandmaster "castle because you have to, or because you want to. Never just because you can"
If you are just beginning, I recommend it on almost all occasions, within (say) the first dozen moves. Better opponents will soon exploit an exposed centralised King. But as another poster said, in closed positions, and in positions where rapi ...[text shortened]... . Clearly, when the side you intend to castle into is under strong attack, it is plain stupid!
As pithy as the quote sounds, castling is almost mandatory if you want a good game, keeping your king centralized and your rooks disconnected can hardly be a good idea. (Generally speaking, of course).
Originally posted by amolv06yeah, whatever. People who don't castle suck, though. It's a universal constant, like the speed of light.
I have heard a couple of more experienced players on this site say that they like to postpone castling until later on in the game because while castled their opponent has a stationary target to attack.
Show me some "A" players and above who never castle, and I'll run down to the river and drown myself.