Can You Play Well in Chess Even if You Don’t Castle? 

Castling is important in chess. If you have watched any game played between any strong chess players, 98% of the time there will be at least one castling move per game.

Is it better to castle kingside or ...
Is it better to castle kingside or queenside? Chessdelights.com

Even if one player doesn’t castle, the game usually features at least one castling move, it looks to be an important part of the game.

There are even cases where a particular side that didn’t castle gets punished severely.

But is this really true?

Can you really not play well if you don’t castle in chess?

This is what I will be answering today since I feel that it is important.

One of the lessons that I have learned is that you shouldn’t treat anything in chess as automatic, you should make decisions based on what you are thinking.

Castling is of course important, but is it important enough that you have to do it every single game?

I think not, and I will show you why. Without further ado, let’s get started. 

Why do people castle in chess?

People usually castle in chess to protect their king. The king is the most important piece in chess, you cannot afford having it attacked early.

A castling move may leave the king stuck in the corner, but the position will keep it safe. Any attack that can be orchestrated from a castled king will be met by a defensive front made of pawns and pieces.

If you left the king in the center on the other hand, the opponent is likely going to break the center and open up some lines. This will make the most important piece in the game at risk of being checkmated, you cannot afford to allow this.

Since there are also many pieces in the opening yet to be captured, having an attack is also likely.

You might think that there might be more but not really, the king is powerful in its own right.

This is the reason why you need to activate the king in the endgame, it is powerful, just not early in the game. People rather castle to protect their king. 

Will you always lose in chess if you don’t castle?

You would not lose just because you do not castle. Keeping the king safe is important, but letting it stay in the center does not necessarily mean that it is not safe.

If you do not castle and have a solid defense, you can even push some pawns in order to attack a castled enemy king. The game will be difficult, but it is not like you will not have a counter play.

There are definitely many games that have been won even when one side doesn’t castle. It is because the one that didn’t castle made use of any opportunity that they had, they even put up an attack on the castled enemy king.

Most of the time it is recommended that you should castle, because it is just the safer play.

However there are specific circumstances where it is better not to castle. If you think that you have a good defense in the center and you can push some pawns to the enemy king, maybe you shouldn’t castle.

It is not like you cannot play well in these kinds of positions, it is just more risky. This risk can turn off a lot of people but it can pay well if you use it in the right circumstances.

I would still not recommend the “no castling approach”, you should only use it in specific situations (examples are mentioned).

But my point is that you won’t automatically lose if you don’t castle, there are still many ways for you to create a counter play.

You can still play well as long as you take advantage of any available opportunities. 

Then why do people always castle?

The reason why people always castle is because they want to play safe. There is a reason why we celebrate players like Mikhail Tal and Rashid Nezhmetdinov, these are chess players that operate in dangerous positions.

Not many players do this, there is no one in modern chess the top that adopts this particular playstyle.

This kind of chess just doesn’t win consistently, you may win a beautiful game here and there but you won’t do it all the time.

That is why a lot of chess players prefer castling. They see these strong chess players, and they start to think that it is mandatory to castle.

I repeat, you can still play good chess even if you don’t castle. It is just that it is the safer approach, probably also the one that will win the most games.

Another reason is that chess players usually hate complications, positions where there is so much happening at the same time. I will admit, I am one of these chess players.

And not just me, there are probably many out there that share the same sentiment. I want to play good chess, but I prefer positional ones where I wouldn’t have to fry my brain during the calculation process.

Tactically-oriented positions are hard to play, and if you don’t castle you will guarantee a tactically-centric game.

People don’t want complications, therefore they avoid it. These are some of the reasons why people just castle, they want to play relaxing and easy chess. 

Do chess grandmasters castle in all their games?

No, chess grandmasters did not always castle in all of their games. I will agree that a lot of them castle in the majority of their games, but certainly not all.

I have just browsed this morning and have already seen a dozen examples, it is not hard to find no-castling games played between grandmasters.

However, there are still more castling games than no-castling games, I think this is for a good reason.

There is a reason why grandmasters prefer castling most of the time, even in positions where it is fine to not castle, they still castle. This is because of risk tolerance. You see, elite chess players are those that cannot take too much risk themselves.

Ask yourself why there are a lot of draws in the professional chess scene?

It is of course because of risk tolerance.

The one who wins in the chess tournament is usually not the one that wins the most, it is the one that has drawn the most games and won the most critical ones.

Grandmasters are usually struggling to make a living, they need good results in tournaments.

They cannot afford to take unnecessary risk, which is why they castle even if it is not necessary.

Super grandmasters are also placed in the same predicament, they want to draw/win to keep their rating.

In order to keep being a super grandmaster they have to do this, meaning they also have to play it safe. This is the reason why a lot of chess grandmasters castle in their games.

It is their career, they cannot afford losing a lot of games. They castle because the professional chess scene does not tolerate losses. 

Are there instances where it is actually better to not castle?

Yes, I have alluded to this earlier. There are some positions where it is better to not castle. The best position to not castle is when the center is closed.

There are many variations in the french or caro-kann defense where this is possible. These positions happen a lot with these openings, but there are also others that could lead in these close positions.

Now, I am not saying that you shouldn’t castle in the french defense/caro kann defense, I am saying that it is an option.

In any closed center, the breakthrough will likely happen in the king side, if you castle there then you will be in the line of fire.

It is better than not to castle if the center is close anyways, your opponent probably can’t do much damage if the center is close.

A breakthrough is necessary in any closed position, and if the center is completely closed then there is no reason to castle.

Another case where it might be a good to not castle is when you have solid pawns that do not allow a breakthrough. If you do not over push the pawns in front of the king, then it might be fine to keep it as it is.

You can always attack the enemy “castled” king by pushing the pawns that no longer have to defend the king. This is better if you want a complicated position where the ideas are not clear.

You can even try this again against a stronger opponent that is probably better positionally, just hoping that the complication is enough to grab a win.

These are some of the cases where it is better to not castle. 

What are the things to remember when you choose not to castle?

Before deciding to play a no-castle match, just remember a few things. The reason why people castle is because they want to ensure the safety of the king, this is something that you should look for.

The reason why I advise not castling in a closed center is because the king’s safety is guaranteed in a closed center.

When the center is closed, the enemy pawn or pieces can’t do much to force an attack. There might be other situations where the king’s safety is guaranteed in the center, in these cases, it is probably fine to not castle.

Just remember that it is also probably fine to castle in this situation, it really depends on what you want to achieve.

If you want to be defensive then you should probably castle, if you are more greedy you can skip castling.

This is the first thing to remember. The second thing is if castling can lead your king to an attack, you shouldn’t castle in this situation.

This is especially true against players that bring their queen early, sometimes they will bring their pieces in front of the king side expecting a king side castle. If castling can even point your king to the enemy’s line of fire, you probably shouldn’t do it.

Just measure the amount of risk that the king can take and decide whether to castle or not. It is really up to you, but these are just the things to remember before doing it. 

Conclusion

You can still play relatively well even if you don’t castle in chess. People usually castle in order to safely remove their king from any potential attacks.

There are some cases however where the enemy places their pieces or pawns near a potential kingside/queenside castle, you should probably not castle in these situations.

There are also positions where the center will be naturally closed (pawns are locked up together). In these positions where the center is closed, it is better to not castle at all.

Any closed position requires a breakthrough for progress to be made, castling from a closed center will probably put the king into more risk than safety.

If this is the case then it is fine to manually march the king nearer the closed center than to probably meet up a pawn storm on the kingside.

We have seen many people convert winning positions from a no-castling game, of course it is possible to play well in such positions. That is all for this article, thank you for reading. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.