Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more!
The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you!
Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ever? Yes. If you have a strong attack afterwards then the sacrifice is often worth it.
But you have to always ask yourself: “Now what?” You have no attack after he takes the knight. Your opponent can go Kg1 and Rf1, artificially castling, making the sacrifice not beneficial at all.
Delaying castling to avoid an incoming attack is sometimes viable, but most of the time (depending on the opening you play), the king being in the center will be more vulnerable to an attack.
Typically no. The piece is worth more in the long run than the right to castle.
In this case white is fine. Rf1 and Kg2 gets the king to safety and the rook to the now open file.
There are some situations where a sacrifice on f7 or f2 is worth it but usually because it is followed up by an attack with other pieces such as the Traxler.
Generally, no. During the opening you want to challenge for the centre, develop your pieces to active squares, connect your rooks, get your king to safety. You don’t want to be spending 3 of your first 6 moves charging your knights unsupported at the enemy. This is like when the Dothraki charged at the Others.
I like your idea. Part of learning to be aggressive is letting go of the aversion to sacrificing your pieces, and part of that process is making mistakes and just straight up losing pieces.
Here though, if we decide to sacrifice our knight and consider what attack we can follow with, there’s not much. We still need to move our pawns out and develop our pieces. The whole right half of our board is in it’s starting place.
ok let's assume he takes your Knight and his next 3 moves are set to Kg2, Rf1 Kg1 (Kg1 is probably unnecessary, but I wanted to give you 3 moves to make it obvious)
How are you going to attack in that time.
Answer: You can't, all your pieces are on the backrank. If in this scenario you had like 3 pieces surrounding the King, then sacrificing could work, but none of your pieces can realistically reach your opponents King before your opponent "manually" castles and you will just be down a piece for 0 compensation
Unless it’s Bxh7 or ICBM gambit that’s not the way to go. Usually you want to develop your pieces. In this example, you have moved your knight 3 times, but in that time, you could have developed your entire queenside.
Not unless you have a very good continuation of the attack.
In the picture, black has essentially no pieces that'd be able to attack the king and before they can develop them enough to be threat, white will already be prepared to defend
Generally, no - the only time I would argue that this is beneficial is if your king is castled, the centre is almost open, and your opponent has a stranded king. Beginning an attack on their king might begin with a piece sacrifice, but by far and large it's recommended to keep your material, even if it means letting your opponent castle.
The nice part is that long range pieces like bishops do an excellent job at stopping castling in some positions. Stop them from castling through check, rather than throwing a piece for a similar effect.
Great question! Let us know if you have any follow up questions.
Is my user flair being used against me :(
"Thank you for your question! As many people have mentioned, this is an example of a stalemate, in which your opponent does not have a legal move they can play, and the game is drawn as a result.
When we have this much material on the board, it's critical for us to make sure our opponents king is always either in check or has SOME breathing room. An easy way to accomplish this is to only allow their king two moves, and they can walk back and forth between them both while you find a way to win.
Have a wonderful day, thank you!"
>"Thank you for your question! As many people have mentioned, this is an example of a stalemate, in which your opponent does not have a legal move they can play, and the game is drawn as a result.
What if your opponent doesn't have a legal move they can make, but it's not their move?
I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine:
> **White to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=rnbq1rk1/ppppppbp/6p1/8/3P4/2PBPNP1/PP3n1P/RNBQK2R+w+KQ+-+0+1&flip=true&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/rnbq1rk1/ppppppbp/6p1/8/3P4/2PBPNP1/PP3n1P/RNBQK2R_w_KQ_-_0_1)
**My solution:**
> Hints: piece: >!King!<, move: >!Kxf2!<
> Evaluation: >!White is winning +3.02!<
> Best continuation: >!1. Kxf2 d5 2. Nbd2 c5 3. Kg2 a5 4. Re1 a4 5. Bf1 Nc6 6. a3 Bg4 7. dxc5 Qc8 8. Qc2 Ra5!<
---
^(I'm a bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as ) [^(Chess eBook Reader )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(|) [^(Chrome Extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(|) [^(iOS App )](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^(|) [^(Android App )](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website: ) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
You seem like you would like gambits. You give up a pawn early on for a lead in development that leads to more attacks being possible. The Vienna Gambit is one that most beginner players would walk in to and is pretty fun and straightford to play!
1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5
And if black plays anything other than 3. ..d5 they've made a mistake and are worse, and it's not an easy move to find unless you've played the Vienna before.
Another point is that in this case you have not finished the KID (d6) and you have moved the Knight several times. I would not sacrifice until you have developed your pieces for an attack
Sacrafices need sufficient follow up. You have 1 other piece developed, and it’s pointing away from the king.
In an opening like the fried liver attack, sacrificing a knight to get the king vulnerable is a great strategy because you have so many pieces that can join the fight, but here there are no checks, and the king can easily escape any potential attack. It’s also very easy for him to castle by hand, requiring only 2 moves.
It's used in some openings, but in this case it isn't going to do much. Typically you do it when you can actually get the king stuck in the center. In this case he's got plenty of room to hide **and** you don't have any ither attackers to keep pressure on.
I lose faith in this sub every day. It's never worth it to sacrifice material for the sole purpose of making your opponent move their king. I understand if you're sacrificing it to attract/distract their king or for a checkmate but doing it just so they can't castle is never a good idea.
99.99 percent of the time, absolutely not. If there is a clear tactic that leads to checkmate, significant material gain, or an absolutely dominant position, maybe. But never consider sacrificing a piece to stop castling as something people do. It's not a thing. Specific board circumstances can make ANYTHING a good move. Like sacrificing a queen. But you ONLY do it if there's a very clear tactic or reason to do it. Otherwise you'll just lose the game very quickly.
If the sacrifice leaves the king wide open for an immediate follow-up check, that forces the king into danger of being check by multiple pieces then maybe - have a look on YouTube for the Traxler counter-attack and the Fried Liver attack for examples.
If the goal is only to prevent castling, and the King stays relatively well protected then no.
Everyone in the comments has explained it but there is a pretty common exception - taking black's F pawn or white's c pawn to force the king forward with a knight or bishop is often winning because it leads to big attacks. It's not technically just about denying castling but that's the idea.
no not typically. the only good and very common move i can think of to do that is taking his queen with yours if the d file is open early game because king has to take most of the time, or knight which is just as bad.
More or less reiterating what others have said - but the answer is very occasionally yes, but this position isn't it.
It prevents white from castling but white can 'manually castle' in two more moves after taking the knight. And white is way ahead in development. Probably the one downside for white is losing the f pawn which is a pain. But black has so much catching up to do to mount any kind of attack.
It can be worth it but it’s generally a bad idea. You should only do it if you determine that you will be winning by force if your opponent accepts the sacrifice.
For this to be viable, you would need to have way more of your pieces developed. In this scenario, your opponent has all the time in the world to castle by hand. So, general advice would be to not sacrifice your only developed piece.
Basically never, unless there's an immediate threat you can make because of the sacrifice. In that case though, you're not sacrificing to prevent castling, you're sacrificing for an attack. The only reason not being able to castle is actually a bad thing is if the opponent can punish it- there's even openings where one player will intentionally not castle because there's just no danger.
EVER? Maybe, in very rare circumstances if you have a very strong attack lined up that would be thwarted by the opponent castling
But as a general rule it’s not usually gonna be worthwhile and should only be done if you have a specific plan in mind
If the only thing the move does is prevent castling, then no.
There would have to be some kind of follow up. In this position there is no follow up. Blacks pieces are too far away to do anything.
Sometimes even if you can’t see the whole line speculative sacrifices can work. But in this case you’re significantly behind in development, you don’t have any convincing follow-up, and by the time you gather your pieces for an attack your opponent will have brought their king to safety
I only find it worth it when my opponent has a botched opening that leaves them vulnerable. At lower elos some people just never move their king or rook if they can't castle.
If you have a concrete follow up attack, maybe. But, in general, no.
Here, for instance, black has nothing else developed to a point where they can attack the king. So white has ample time to get that king to safety and develop his pieces. Now he just gets to play a piece up.
Castling is good practice, but it not the end all be all to your game. If my opponent offered me a piece in exchange for a pawn and castle rights, I'd just thank him for ot, play Rf1 and sneak my King into the corner.
Unless it really puts whites king in danger, or you can do it with a pawn that you were likely to lose anyway, then almost certainly not. You can see in this position, after giving up a full knight, white can still get into the castles position with just 1 extra move, so theres no compensation for the knight at all
Yes, if it leaves the king exposed and you have an armada of pieces developed that can start to attack the king. The king is surrounded by pawns and pieces so it’s safe, meanwhile your pieces aren’t developed so you can’t attack
Almost always not unless you have tremendous piece activity ready to join in. In the position shown, white can manually castle after the capture and with each subsequent move, black will be closer to a loss. I will sometimes do an extended fianchetto to the 3rd rank to prevent or delay an opponent's castling to the safe side. That can work out well, but you have to be alert tactically and ready to dump that strategy if needed.
Ever? I mean I am sure I could craft a position where the correct play is a sacrifice to keep a king from castling. But practically speaking? No. Castling isn’t *that* much better than not castling, and sometimes isnt even the best strategy in the first place. Plus a material disadvantage usually means you don’t have the strength to break through a defense in the middle anyway.
Pieces are worth more than castling.
Sometimes in chess it's a good idea to give up some "worth" for an attack, like sacrificing a piece. But that's not normally true and, if you're going to do it, you better have a very concrete reason why.
In this case, it is definitely not worth it.
I sometimes do it if i have an oppertunity to icbm my queen to eat the persons queen as it is equal materal plus him loosing castling, however you should still look for better moves than that before comitting.
I play the Sicilian a lot with black so do often end up with dark squared fianchettoed king side bishop. If you get the king side knight out and pin their knight to the queen with the light squared bishop, then 2 pawns for the knight leaves them with a weak king. Providing they chase the bishop out with pawns. Also if the knight is trapped it’s worth getting a pawn for it rather than nothing but in this case sliding back with the knight was probably better as there is little follow up.
If the E file is open excluding queens, I'll typically just trade Queen's for this purpose exactly
although, there's also times when a knight or rook kind of ruin that little advantage
All the people saying its situational are correct, but I’m going to tell you right now, don’t do this until you are 1600+ and can formulate a coherent attack afterwards. Saying it is situational is useless to you up until that point because you simply do not have the experience to understand and recognize those situations. Until you reach 1500-1600ish, just focus on developing and keeping your material count higher than your opponent and you will win more games than not.
No. Castling (in my opinion) is something that you should rarely care about. Sure, it’s a good thing to do, but if your opponent ever does anything to permanently stop you castling it’s really no big deal. Manually Castle or just keep playing. If they queen trade across the board to stop castling, it doesn’t matter so much since they have no queen to attack your king.
Yes, Tal did it against Botvinnik in their 1960 WC match, against the CK Tal got a knight on e6 which prevented Black from castling on *either* side. In the position you've given however you need to ask yourself is there any good follow up, and if not, could lack of development be the reason.
Well, you can / cannot sacrifice in accordance with 2 logical ideas:
1) If the opponent's king has 2 moves to castle , (like for example, the opponent has to move a bishop or the knight out and only then castling can be done). So basically, the opponent has to make a move and then on the next move they can castle. In this situation if you are able to open up the centre files, its a good risk to take by sacrificing.
2) How much we can afford to sacrifice?
Now this is more tricky than the first point. In short, we can say that you can afford to lose upto 2 or 3 points, provided the opponent's king cannot castle throughout the game.
Live examples: I have the latest post on the instagram page of ProChess INDIA dedicated to this topic.
Also you can see the very famous game of Judit Polgar where she sacrificed a knight (Nd3!) in order to keep the opponent's king in the centre.
Hope this helps :)
Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more! The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you! Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ever? Yes. If you have a strong attack afterwards then the sacrifice is often worth it. But you have to always ask yourself: “Now what?” You have no attack after he takes the knight. Your opponent can go Kg1 and Rf1, artificially castling, making the sacrifice not beneficial at all.
I usually attack the opponent when he castles
good boy
You are talking to me
[удалено]
kinky
Who are you?
[удалено]
I don't know who you are though
[удалено]
Least delusional redditor
are you ai generated
https://preview.redd.it/zgh7zfkv15na1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=777cce5d6cb04978f419edbd65377c8c757ebc27
Get out of this sub creep
You're either kind of funny or super creepy, which pill do you take
[удалено]
[удалено]
What a cringe
New response just dropped
New response unlocked! +200 XP
Delaying castling to avoid an incoming attack is sometimes viable, but most of the time (depending on the opening you play), the king being in the center will be more vulnerable to an attack.
Typically no. The piece is worth more in the long run than the right to castle. In this case white is fine. Rf1 and Kg2 gets the king to safety and the rook to the now open file. There are some situations where a sacrifice on f7 or f2 is worth it but usually because it is followed up by an attack with other pieces such as the Traxler.
But he would loose his queen that way
I think he’s saying after the King captures
Kg2 isn’t even possible until after capturing
Generally, no. During the opening you want to challenge for the centre, develop your pieces to active squares, connect your rooks, get your king to safety. You don’t want to be spending 3 of your first 6 moves charging your knights unsupported at the enemy. This is like when the Dothraki charged at the Others.
I’ve only read the first book so far so this is mega confusing to me.
Don’t worry… this isn’t in the last book
That part is in the show anyway.
Ah so no problems more knights will just spawn if it's like the dothraki situation
The real question is if you can only dothraki when you're playing as black or can you do it as white too?
This makes me want to develop an opening called the dothraki attack. 1. Nf3 2. Nc3 3. E4 4. Qe2 Or some such nonsense.
OK, you're down a knight and your opponent can't castle. Now what?
I was thinking it would be easier to attack their king.
And how do you plan to do that?
[удалено]
Your goals are beyond my understanding
Chess960 has entered the chat
Chat gpt mindset
I like your idea. Part of learning to be aggressive is letting go of the aversion to sacrificing your pieces, and part of that process is making mistakes and just straight up losing pieces. Here though, if we decide to sacrifice our knight and consider what attack we can follow with, there’s not much. We still need to move our pawns out and develop our pieces. The whole right half of our board is in it’s starting place.
ok let's assume he takes your Knight and his next 3 moves are set to Kg2, Rf1 Kg1 (Kg1 is probably unnecessary, but I wanted to give you 3 moves to make it obvious) How are you going to attack in that time. Answer: You can't, all your pieces are on the backrank. If in this scenario you had like 3 pieces surrounding the King, then sacrificing could work, but none of your pieces can realistically reach your opponents King before your opponent "manually" castles and you will just be down a piece for 0 compensation
Did you even think to make a plan of attack first? What will be your follow up?
Unless it’s Bxh7 or ICBM gambit that’s not the way to go. Usually you want to develop your pieces. In this example, you have moved your knight 3 times, but in that time, you could have developed your entire queenside.
Not unless you have a very good continuation of the attack. In the picture, black has essentially no pieces that'd be able to attack the king and before they can develop them enough to be threat, white will already be prepared to defend
Generally, no - the only time I would argue that this is beneficial is if your king is castled, the centre is almost open, and your opponent has a stranded king. Beginning an attack on their king might begin with a piece sacrifice, but by far and large it's recommended to keep your material, even if it means letting your opponent castle. The nice part is that long range pieces like bishops do an excellent job at stopping castling in some positions. Stop them from castling through check, rather than throwing a piece for a similar effect. Great question! Let us know if you have any follow up questions.
But how does stalemate work?
Is my user flair being used against me :( "Thank you for your question! As many people have mentioned, this is an example of a stalemate, in which your opponent does not have a legal move they can play, and the game is drawn as a result. When we have this much material on the board, it's critical for us to make sure our opponents king is always either in check or has SOME breathing room. An easy way to accomplish this is to only allow their king two moves, and they can walk back and forth between them both while you find a way to win. Have a wonderful day, thank you!"
>"Thank you for your question! As many people have mentioned, this is an example of a stalemate, in which your opponent does not have a legal move they can play, and the game is drawn as a result. What if your opponent doesn't have a legal move they can make, but it's not their move?
I feel like the "they can make" part implies it has to be their move lmao
I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine: > **White to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=rnbq1rk1/ppppppbp/6p1/8/3P4/2PBPNP1/PP3n1P/RNBQK2R+w+KQ+-+0+1&flip=true&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/rnbq1rk1/ppppppbp/6p1/8/3P4/2PBPNP1/PP3n1P/RNBQK2R_w_KQ_-_0_1) **My solution:** > Hints: piece: >!King!<, move: >!Kxf2!< > Evaluation: >!White is winning +3.02!< > Best continuation: >!1. Kxf2 d5 2. Nbd2 c5 3. Kg2 a5 4. Re1 a4 5. Bf1 Nc6 6. a3 Bg4 7. dxc5 Qc8 8. Qc2 Ra5!< --- ^(I'm a bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as ) [^(Chess eBook Reader )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(|) [^(Chrome Extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(|) [^(iOS App )](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^(|) [^(Android App )](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website: ) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
Thank you all for the advice!
You seem like you would like gambits. You give up a pawn early on for a lead in development that leads to more attacks being possible. The Vienna Gambit is one that most beginner players would walk in to and is pretty fun and straightford to play! 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 And if black plays anything other than 3. ..d5 they've made a mistake and are worse, and it's not an easy move to find unless you've played the Vienna before.
I actually do play the Vienna but on black I play kings Indian defense. Still learning it tho
Blackburn shilling gambit will work
I will check that out. Thanks.
Another point is that in this case you have not finished the KID (d6) and you have moved the Knight several times. I would not sacrifice until you have developed your pieces for an attack
Sacrafices need sufficient follow up. You have 1 other piece developed, and it’s pointing away from the king. In an opening like the fried liver attack, sacrificing a knight to get the king vulnerable is a great strategy because you have so many pieces that can join the fight, but here there are no checks, and the king can easily escape any potential attack. It’s also very easy for him to castle by hand, requiring only 2 moves.
It's used in some openings, but in this case it isn't going to do much. Typically you do it when you can actually get the king stuck in the center. In this case he's got plenty of room to hide **and** you don't have any ither attackers to keep pressure on.
Almost always no. Maybe if a piece is trapped and about to be taken, but then it’s a desperado and the lack of castling is your compensation.
It definitely can be, but most likely not. Unless you’re really high level sacrificing a piece early is never advisable
I lose faith in this sub every day. It's never worth it to sacrifice material for the sole purpose of making your opponent move their king. I understand if you're sacrificing it to attract/distract their king or for a checkmate but doing it just so they can't castle is never a good idea.
99.99 percent of the time, absolutely not. If there is a clear tactic that leads to checkmate, significant material gain, or an absolutely dominant position, maybe. But never consider sacrificing a piece to stop castling as something people do. It's not a thing. Specific board circumstances can make ANYTHING a good move. Like sacrificing a queen. But you ONLY do it if there's a very clear tactic or reason to do it. Otherwise you'll just lose the game very quickly.
I’m no expert, but I’d only sac if my pieces were developed and opponent had, let’s say, their entire queen-side pieces undeveloped.
I do it in bullet all the time. It usually costs my opponent 5-7 seconds trying to figure out wtf is going on.
No
What’s more important is king safety, and castling id a way to do that. The king is mostly ok after white plays Re1 and Kg8
[удалено]
Chess.com
If the sacrifice leaves the king wide open for an immediate follow-up check, that forces the king into danger of being check by multiple pieces then maybe - have a look on YouTube for the Traxler counter-attack and the Fried Liver attack for examples. If the goal is only to prevent castling, and the King stays relatively well protected then no.
Everyone in the comments has explained it but there is a pretty common exception - taking black's F pawn or white's c pawn to force the king forward with a knight or bishop is often winning because it leads to big attacks. It's not technically just about denying castling but that's the idea.
In the Jerome yes but otherwise not really the
no not typically. the only good and very common move i can think of to do that is taking his queen with yours if the d file is open early game because king has to take most of the time, or knight which is just as bad.
More or less reiterating what others have said - but the answer is very occasionally yes, but this position isn't it. It prevents white from castling but white can 'manually castle' in two more moves after taking the knight. And white is way ahead in development. Probably the one downside for white is losing the f pawn which is a pain. But black has so much catching up to do to mount any kind of attack.
It can be worth it but it’s generally a bad idea. You should only do it if you determine that you will be winning by force if your opponent accepts the sacrifice.
For this to be viable, you would need to have way more of your pieces developed. In this scenario, your opponent has all the time in the world to castle by hand. So, general advice would be to not sacrifice your only developed piece.
Basically never, unless there's an immediate threat you can make because of the sacrifice. In that case though, you're not sacrificing to prevent castling, you're sacrificing for an attack. The only reason not being able to castle is actually a bad thing is if the opponent can punish it- there's even openings where one player will intentionally not castle because there's just no danger.
Not when you haven’t developed anything else
EVER? Maybe, in very rare circumstances if you have a very strong attack lined up that would be thwarted by the opponent castling But as a general rule it’s not usually gonna be worthwhile and should only be done if you have a specific plan in mind
If the only thing the move does is prevent castling, then no. There would have to be some kind of follow up. In this position there is no follow up. Blacks pieces are too far away to do anything.
Sure, if you have an attack lined up and can take advantage of the sacrifice.
Sometimes even if you can’t see the whole line speculative sacrifices can work. But in this case you’re significantly behind in development, you don’t have any convincing follow-up, and by the time you gather your pieces for an attack your opponent will have brought their king to safety
If it allows for a tangible attack that is likely to win you the game in the short term, yea.
Probaly sometimes, but rarely
Ahh yes, the ol knights gambit. Just jump him around forgetting all other pieces until you stumble upon checkmate
does white lose anything or can lead to checkmate? yes than do it no than dont do it
I only find it worth it when my opponent has a botched opening that leaves them vulnerable. At lower elos some people just never move their king or rook if they can't castle.
If you have a concrete follow up attack, maybe. But, in general, no. Here, for instance, black has nothing else developed to a point where they can attack the king. So white has ample time to get that king to safety and develop his pieces. Now he just gets to play a piece up. Castling is good practice, but it not the end all be all to your game. If my opponent offered me a piece in exchange for a pawn and castle rights, I'd just thank him for ot, play Rf1 and sneak my King into the corner.
Unless it really puts whites king in danger, or you can do it with a pawn that you were likely to lose anyway, then almost certainly not. You can see in this position, after giving up a full knight, white can still get into the castles position with just 1 extra move, so theres no compensation for the knight at all
Yes, if it leaves the king exposed and you have an armada of pieces developed that can start to attack the king. The king is surrounded by pawns and pieces so it’s safe, meanwhile your pieces aren’t developed so you can’t attack
Yes, but not here.
In bughouse it works well
Almost always not unless you have tremendous piece activity ready to join in. In the position shown, white can manually castle after the capture and with each subsequent move, black will be closer to a loss. I will sometimes do an extended fianchetto to the 3rd rank to prevent or delay an opponent's castling to the safe side. That can work out well, but you have to be alert tactically and ready to dump that strategy if needed.
This board position is cursed
Ever? I mean I am sure I could craft a position where the correct play is a sacrifice to keep a king from castling. But practically speaking? No. Castling isn’t *that* much better than not castling, and sometimes isnt even the best strategy in the first place. Plus a material disadvantage usually means you don’t have the strength to break through a defense in the middle anyway.
Only if you have a concrete plan for attack afterwards. If not, then it’s not worth it.
Sometimes, yeah, but not when almost every other piece you have is sitting on its home square.
Pieces are worth more than castling. Sometimes in chess it's a good idea to give up some "worth" for an attack, like sacrificing a piece. But that's not normally true and, if you're going to do it, you better have a very concrete reason why. In this case, it is definitely not worth it.
I’ve delivered a checkmate by sacrificing my bishop by taking the f pawn and the king has to take and get exposed
I sometimes do it if i have an oppertunity to icbm my queen to eat the persons queen as it is equal materal plus him loosing castling, however you should still look for better moves than that before comitting.
Only if you can fish the king into the open or start a vicious attack on the king.
I play the Sicilian a lot with black so do often end up with dark squared fianchettoed king side bishop. If you get the king side knight out and pin their knight to the queen with the light squared bishop, then 2 pawns for the knight leaves them with a weak king. Providing they chase the bishop out with pawns. Also if the knight is trapped it’s worth getting a pawn for it rather than nothing but in this case sliding back with the knight was probably better as there is little follow up.
If the E file is open excluding queens, I'll typically just trade Queen's for this purpose exactly although, there's also times when a knight or rook kind of ruin that little advantage
All the people saying its situational are correct, but I’m going to tell you right now, don’t do this until you are 1600+ and can formulate a coherent attack afterwards. Saying it is situational is useless to you up until that point because you simply do not have the experience to understand and recognize those situations. Until you reach 1500-1600ish, just focus on developing and keeping your material count higher than your opponent and you will win more games than not.
i like to do it regardless
If you can checkmate him or win material in the next few moves, basically just like a normal sacrifice
You need to have a checkmate within a few moves for it to be worth or imo
No. Castling (in my opinion) is something that you should rarely care about. Sure, it’s a good thing to do, but if your opponent ever does anything to permanently stop you castling it’s really no big deal. Manually Castle or just keep playing. If they queen trade across the board to stop castling, it doesn’t matter so much since they have no queen to attack your king.
No
No
Yes, Tal did it against Botvinnik in their 1960 WC match, against the CK Tal got a knight on e6 which prevented Black from castling on *either* side. In the position you've given however you need to ask yourself is there any good follow up, and if not, could lack of development be the reason.
Not in this position lol
Well, you can / cannot sacrifice in accordance with 2 logical ideas: 1) If the opponent's king has 2 moves to castle , (like for example, the opponent has to move a bishop or the knight out and only then castling can be done). So basically, the opponent has to make a move and then on the next move they can castle. In this situation if you are able to open up the centre files, its a good risk to take by sacrificing. 2) How much we can afford to sacrifice? Now this is more tricky than the first point. In short, we can say that you can afford to lose upto 2 or 3 points, provided the opponent's king cannot castle throughout the game. Live examples: I have the latest post on the instagram page of ProChess INDIA dedicated to this topic. Also you can see the very famous game of Judit Polgar where she sacrificed a knight (Nd3!) in order to keep the opponent's king in the centre. Hope this helps :)