Answers.Body: <p>In fact, Larry Kaufman (Komodo) did computer testing on this with Komodo, and found that White has about 50% winning chances when Black starts with no castling privileges. So it's a toss-up.</p>
  
  <p><a href="http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=650339#650339" rel="noreferrer">http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=650339#650339</a></p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Here is a perfect example: In the initial position, forbid Black from
    castling. Komodo gives that position a score that is around where I
    think the dividing line between win and draw lies. I had Komodo 9.3
    play it out on four threads (to insure variety due to MP
    unpredictability) a hundred times at game in one minute. getting 49
    White wins, 46 draws, 5 Black wins. Then at two minutes plus one
    second, a similar result: 49 White wins, 49 draws, 2 Black wins. So
    just forbidding castling for Black appears to put the game right on
    the win/draw line. Of course results could be different at TCEC time
    controls on many cores, but it's not obvious whether the White win
    percentage would go up or down.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>There have been some who have dubbed this "Kaufman chess", and suggested it as a sort of long-time control Armageddon method (rather than two rapid games, then two faster games, then two blitz games, and finally a blitz Armageddon, as in the FIDE World Cup).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-02-11T14:30:19.170Z
Answers.Text: I think this answer misunderstands what Larry Kaufman said. He said it's 50% between White win and _draw_ (with Black wins close to negligible)! Which is much better chances for White than the standard game, hardly 'a toss-up'
Answers.UserDisplayName: AakashM
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-05-25T07:04:03.983Z
Answers.Text: One could argue that this analysis is flawed, because black is an engine that has been trained and optimized to play chess-with-castling and is now playing a different game. Arguably all the parameter tuning, position evaluation, neural network training (if there are any NNs in the engine), opening books have to be redone from scratch to get a fair comparison.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Federico Poloni
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-01T03:09:16.743Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-08-01T03:09:16.743Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Post-It-Note
Answers.Body: <p>Castling is an important move that allows a player to put his king into the corner's safety. The rearrangement that occurs when a player castles is beneficial because the king usually finds increased safety, away from the dangerous centre files while the rook boosts its attacking potential by moving out of the corner. To explain how much of an advantage it gives to have your opponent not being able to castle, I will talk about some positional strategies that we can adopt to exploit the disadvantage of it.</p>
  
  <p>Every player likes to control the centre, the strategy of central control is why you want your d and e pawns to come up to d3, e3, d4 and e4 squares and try and control d4 d5 e4 and e5 centre squares. This opens up the centre and if the king is unable to castle and go behind g or c pawn, this leaves him right behind the open pawn structure in the centre, while his opponent's king looks very safe behind the f g and h pawns.</p>
  
  <p>So assume white is the one who is not allowed to castle, and black already has. White needs to think about counter attack on f, g and h files and wants to open the black king to create an attack, meanwhile his own king is already open while trying to control the centre by pushing his centre pawns. So here black gains the advantage of having more opportunities to create threats on the open white king and white now has to defend his own king and also think about creating access to black's king, so obviously white is in a much more difficult situation than Black. This is a great advantage that black gets off his opponent not being able to castle (and the reason why most openings include castling in it's book moves).</p>
  
  <p>This can also be related to opposite side castling, where both sides are pushing their opposite pawns forward hoping to be the first to launch an attack (the Sicilian defence is one of the best example where this usually happens). After opposite side castling, both sides can also have their pawns in centre and fight for centre control. While the most important thing is that both can achieve equality in the center, they still don't have to worry about their king because if one player tries to start an attack on his opponent's king side, the other can start a counter attack. Consider the same situation in a position where white's king can not castle and is in e1, say whites pawns are on c2 d2 e3 and f2 protecting the king while the g and h pawns are marching forward to attack black's king. To achieve a successful attack white needs his major pieces to also support the g and h pawns, so not only most of white's pieces have to leave one corner of the board and come to the other, but white also has to give up the centre squares while supporting the corner. Meanwhile, black's minor and major pieces, which have access to the centre, help not only to attack white's King which is in e1, but can also defend his own king since the pieces which are in centre have more mobility and control many more squares than the ones that are in corner!</p>
  
  <p>With proper play from the opening, a side which can castle will have the decisive advantage of an <strong>early attack on the opponents king.</strong></p>
  
  <p>However, there are a few instances where castling should be avoided. Some common reasons include:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>If castling will expose your king to greater danger.</li>
  <li>If your opponent’s most threatening pieces (especially the queen) have already left the board.</li>
  <li>If your rook is supporting an important advance of a flank pawn.</li>
  <li>If you have powerful tactics available immediately and castling will cost you the initiative.</li>
  </ol>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-04-25T14:38:59.950Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-07-23T14:31:04.770Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-07-23T14:31:04.770Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Pavan Nadig
Body: <p>Suppose, you play a normal chess game, with the only exception that the opponent
   is not allowed to castle, but you are.</p>
  
  <p>Do you have a decisive advantage ?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-03-19T21:57:59.670Z
Comments.Text: My guess would be: White can get away with not being able to castle, but black might be lost. I would advice you to start some computer-computer games, that might give you an idea how big this advantage is.
Comments.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-03-19T22:03:23.853Z
Comments.Text: I think, black can also hold the equality, but must of course be more careful with opening the position.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Peter
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-03-19T22:54:00.867Z
Comments.Text: What sort of answer are you expecting here? I am trying to imagine a middle ground between pure speculation on the one hand, and the full-fledged development of opening theory for this variant on the other, but I'm not quite seeing it.
Comments.UserDisplayName: ETD
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-03-21T05:23:53.220Z
Comments.Text: If Black gives up the right to castle, it will be a slight advantage to White. However, if White in return gives up the right to capture *en passant* and the right to underpromote, it should be a tolerably even game.
Comments.UserDisplayName: bof
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-03-26T14:53:02.630Z
Comments.Text: I agree with the "en passant"-part because black can keep the position closed better. But the right of an underpromotion seems very unsignificant for me.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Peter
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-06-03T11:52:27.997Z
Comments.Text: I think the advantage would be decisive at the professional level. At the amateur level, not so much. The proof is empirical: if castling wasn't the best use of a move, GMs would not do it. Yet they do.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-07-25T08:06:02.190Z
Comments.Text: The existence of openings like 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5, where white has the option of going 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8 but usually doesn't, would suggest it's not always that critical.
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-07-28T08:02:28.617Z
Comments.Text: Surely, castling is useful and it is not surprising that in many (but not all) top level games, both sides castle. However, I remember some nice top level games where Black did NOT castle on purpose and earnt nice wins due to an attack of the white king on the queenside. Additionally, if the position keeps close, castling can be often achieved "artificially" (Kf7,Re8,Kg8) without decisive loss of time. And Black should be able to keep the position closed if he actually wants. So I tend to think that Black can hold, but of course Black must be particular careful if he is not allowed to castle.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Peter
Tags: <castling>
Title: Would it be a decisive advantage, if the opponent would not be allowed to castle?
ThreadText: # Would it be a decisive advantage, if the opponent would not be allowed to castle?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-03-19)
  
  Suppose, you play a normal chess game, with the only exception that the opponent
  is not allowed to castle, but you are.
  
  Do you have a decisive advantage ?
  
  **Tags:** castling
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: My guess would be: White can get away with not being able to castle, but black might be lost. I would advice you to start some computer-computer games, that might give you an idea how big this advantage is.  
  > **username_0**: I think, black can also hold the equality, but must of course be more careful with opening the position.  
  > **username_2**: What sort of answer are you expecting here? I am trying to imagine a middle ground between pure speculation on the one hand, and the full-fledged development of opening theory for this variant on the other, but I'm not quite seeing it.  
  > **username_3**: If Black gives up the right to castle, it will be a slight advantage to White. However, if White in return gives up the right to capture *en passant* and the right to underpromote, it should be a tolerably even game.  
  > **username_0**: I agree with the "en passant"-part because black can keep the position closed better. But the right of an underpromotion seems very unsignificant for me.  
  > **username_4**: I think the advantage would be decisive at the professional level. At the amateur level, not so much. The proof is empirical: if castling wasn't the best use of a move, GMs would not do it. Yet they do.  
  > **username_5**: The existence of openings like 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5, where white has the option of going 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8 but usually doesn't, would suggest it's not always that critical.  
  > **username_0**: Surely, castling is useful and it is not surprising that in many (but not all) top level games, both sides castle. However, I remember some nice top level games where Black did NOT castle on purpose and earnt nice wins due to an attack of the white king on the queenside. Additionally, if the position keeps close, castling can be often achieved "artificially" (Kf7,Re8,Kg8) without decisive loss of time. And Black should be able to keep the position closed if he actually wants. So I tend to think that Black can hold, but of course Black must be particular careful if he is not allowed to castle.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2016-08-01. Score: 8
  
  In fact, Larry Kaufman (Komodo) did computer testing on this with Komodo, and found that White has about 50% winning chances when Black starts with no castling privileges. So it's a toss-up.
  
  <http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=650339#650339>
  
  > Here is a perfect example: In the initial position, forbid Black from
  > castling. Komodo gives that position a score that is around where I
  > think the dividing line between win and draw lies. I had Komodo 9.3
  > play it out on four threads (to insure variety due to MP
  > unpredictability) a hundred times at game in one minute. getting 49
  > White wins, 46 draws, 5 Black wins. Then at two minutes plus one
  > second, a similar result: 49 White wins, 49 draws, 2 Black wins. So
  > just forbidding castling for Black appears to put the game right on
  > the win/draw line. Of course results could be different at TCEC time
  > controls on many cores, but it's not obvious whether the White win
  > percentage would go up or down.
  
  There have been some who have dubbed this "Kaufman chess", and suggested it as a sort of long-time control Armageddon method (rather than two rapid games, then two faster games, then two blitz games, and finally a blitz Armageddon, as in the FIDE World Cup).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: I think this answer misunderstands what Larry Kaufman said. He said it's 50% between White win and _draw_ (with Black wins close to negligible)! Which is much better chances for White than the standard game, hardly 'a toss-up'  
  > **username_8**: One could argue that this analysis is flawed, because black is an engine that has been trained and optimized to play chess-with-castling and is now playing a different game. Arguably all the parameter tuning, position evaluation, neural network training (if there are any NNs in the engine), opening books have to be redone from scratch to get a fair comparison.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2015-04-25. Score: 4
  
  Castling is an important move that allows a player to put his king into the corner's safety. The rearrangement that occurs when a player castles is beneficial because the king usually finds increased safety, away from the dangerous centre files while the rook boosts its attacking potential by moving out of the corner. To explain how much of an advantage it gives to have your opponent not being able to castle, I will talk about some positional strategies that we can adopt to exploit the disadvantage of it.
  
  Every player likes to control the centre, the strategy of central control is why you want your d and e pawns to come up to d3, e3, d4 and e4 squares and try and control d4 d5 e4 and e5 centre squares. This opens up the centre and if the king is unable to castle and go behind g or c pawn, this leaves him right behind the open pawn structure in the centre, while his opponent's king looks very safe behind the f g and h pawns.
  
  So assume white is the one who is not allowed to castle, and black already has. White needs to think about counter attack on f, g and h files and wants to open the black king to create an attack, meanwhile his own king is already open while trying to control the centre by pushing his centre pawns. So here black gains the advantage of having more opportunities to create threats on the open white king and white now has to defend his own king and also think about creating access to black's king, so obviously white is in a much more difficult situation than Black. This is a great advantage that black gets off his opponent not being able to castle (and the reason why most openings include castling in it's book moves).
  
  This can also be related to opposite side castling, where both sides are pushing their opposite pawns forward hoping to be the first to launch an attack (the Sicilian defence is one of the best example where this usually happens). After opposite side castling, both sides can also have their pawns in centre and fight for centre control. While the most important thing is that both can achieve equality in the center, they still don't have to worry about their king because if one player tries to start an attack on his opponent's king side, the other can start a counter attack. Consider the same situation in a position where white's king can not castle and is in e1, say whites pawns are on c2 d2 e3 and f2 protecting the king while the g and h pawns are marching forward to attack black's king. To achieve a successful attack white needs his major pieces to also support the g and h pawns, so not only most of white's pieces have to leave one corner of the board and come to the other, but white also has to give up the centre squares while supporting the corner. Meanwhile, black's minor and major pieces, which have access to the centre, help not only to attack white's King which is in e1, but can also defend his own king since the pieces which are in centre have more mobility and control many more squares than the ones that are in corner!
  
  With proper play from the opening, a side which can castle will have the decisive advantage of an **early attack on the opponents king.**
  
  However, there are a few instances where castling should be avoided. Some common reasons include:
  
  1. If castling will expose your king to greater danger.
  2. If your opponent’s most threatening pieces (especially the queen) have already left the board.
  3. If your rook is supporting an important advance of a flank pawn.
  4. If you have powerful tactics available immediately and castling will cost you the initiative.
  
  
  ---
  
  