“Castle if you must, or because you want to, but not because you can!” This thread is exemplified by the following quote, sometimes attributed to Hans Berliner: There is a thread in chess instruction that looks askance at anything that appears too obvious, and insists that anything worth knowing must be complicated and confusing. So, as long as this outrageous move is still allowed, I suggest you take advantage of it. They are not going to get rid of something as iconic as castling. Chess players still insist on delivering all moves in the world championship by horse-drawn carriage. They’re good arguments! But I am also a realist and I recognize this will never happen. So far I am largely rehashing arguments made in the DeepMind paper “Assessing Game Balance with AlphaZero”. Now there’s not just one way to secure the king (okay, two if you count kingside and queenside castling), but many ways of “castling by hand.” But, since all of them are far less efficient than castling, it becomes a much closer call whether you want to spend your moves getting your king to safety, or improving your position in some other way.
#Castle move in chess how to#
Remove castling and the decision of when and how to secure your king gets a lot more interesting. Because castling is such a good move, the decision to castle is no decision at all: it’s a no-brainer. Getting rid of castling would also make the game more interesting. Simply put, castling is way too good of a move. It gets your king to safety and gets your rook closer to the action. It’s the only time the king can move two squares in a single move. It’s the only time you get to move two pieces at once.
0 kommentar(er)
