How do you learn to be an aggressive player?

"Attacking chess" is very weird.


In the game, an opportunity to attack appears, and "attacking chess" is taking advantage of that opportunity...BUT before that opportunity appears, you have to play very positionally correct chess.


Kasparov and Shirov, great attackers, are also great students of the opening.

Young Karpov, the positional masta, was told he had no future by Botvinnik because he didn't know much about the opening.


The attack comes taking a positional advantage and converting it to a material one, or at least a different positional advantage through the exchange of material.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Aha... and those threads are to be found on the club private forum, I presume. Too bad.

Richard

also non-subs can join clubs.

Originally posted by wormwood
also non-subs can join clubs.

True. But there was this non-sub tournament once, which I joined. That didn't go well. I found the extra games were just too much for me, and I got even less attentive than I normally am, and lost hopelessly. So I'm wary of joining a club, because it might cause a similar overload.

Richard

Attacking chess sounds bogus to me. I have visions of badly edited opening books with repertoires like the GPA.

Kasparov was an aggressive player who played dynamic chess. Not attacking chess.

Originally posted by nimzo5
Attacking chess sounds bogus to me. I have visions of badly edited opening books with repertoires like the GPA.

Kasparov was an aggressive player who played dynamic chess. Not attacking chess.

You know in your heart of hearts that attacking chess is real, and it's spectacular.

Hi Nimzo

Aggresive chess is taking chances and risks, it's gambit play
putting you and your opponent into blunderland.

It's low level card sharp chess and I encourage everyone to dabble in it
(what better place than on here where nothing really matters).

You have to take chances and roll the dice when you start out
so you can see your new tactical ideas in action.

Dynamic chess (to me anyway) means you lay out your stall
ready to commit yourself to the attack. Every move is geared towards
that moment when you launch yourself full bloodied into the attack.

Aggressive chess (to me anyway) means you skip the Dynamic part
and go straight in ready or not and start fighting as soon as you can.
You will lose some, you will win some (the wins will be brilliant).

In time the agressive player matures into the dynamic player.
But I don't think you can have the latter till you have been the former.

I wonder if playing weak players would make one play more attackatively hehe attackatively is like that debishipification hehe.

Since perhaps you would start crying if your opponent didn`t get mated within 20 moves.

This technique might not be best to increase ones rating but perhaps would ramp up the attackativity meter.

P.S. ...Should I apply for a job as a dictionary editor?

Originally posted by grit
I'm stick my head out of the Bates Motel long enough to ask this question. It seems my attitude is just trying not to lose. I know that study helps- especially tactics and staying alert to check all checks, but my basic attitude is that I try to stall losing. How can I play with confidence and try to be an attacking player?

Grit

Sorry, I haven't read the replies, but in my experience you must begin with a solid opening foundation and play against the weaknesses in your opponents position (of course, endgames are so important, but if you want to develop a strong attack, you should know how openings work). Look at the example games of the experts.
Focus on gaining piece activity. I believe that a space advantage correlates to higher piece activity and so play openings that seek to gain space advantage and rapid development. Don't tie your pieces to defense, free them up to attack. Use pawns to defend pieces. Keep an eye out for ways to open diagonals or files for bishops or rooks to invade through. Look for ways to check your opponent or else find good decoy tactics. Tactics are so important for sharp positions. I'd rec Yasser Seirwain Winning Chess Tactics

Originally posted by National Master Dale
P.S. ...Should I apply for a job as a dictionary editor?

Maybe as a dictionarial editorizer, eh?

Originally posted by grit
I'm stick my head out of the Bates Motel long enough to ask this question. It seems my attitude is just trying not to lose. I know that study helps- especially tactics and staying alert to check all checks, but my basic attitude is that I try to stall losing. How can I play with confidence and try to be an attacking player?

Grit

There are two ways to defend: when your opponent has a threat, you can respond purely defensively to that threat, or you can look to see if you have a better threat. The latter allows you to seize the initiative, which means that your opponent is now reacting to your threats rather than the other way round.

What you're looking for are forcing moves. That means, your opponent has a choice between making a predictable move to defend against your threat, or else getting the short end of the stick. Forcing moves, then, not only allow you to control the game, but also make it easier to predict what your opponent will do, thus reducing the need for extensive calculation.

I suspect, however, that you find yourself on the defensive because you walk into tactical problems, at which point you are just struggling to save material or avoid checkmate. If so, the problem isn't as much a lack of aggression it's lack of good defense. Every time your opponent moves, look at ALL of his checks, captures, and threats. That includes captures which seem to lose material for him, because he might have a combination: a combination is a sequence of moves that begins with a sacrifice but ends with a gain of material, or mate (or positional advantages strongly tending to lead to the other). If you aren't doing this, you're playing coin-flip chess.

Next, when considering your own move, incorporate the ideas I mentioned in the opening paragraphs. And again, look at all checks, captures, and threats, but this time the ones that YOU have.

You're not done yet. When you find a good move, look for a better one. When you have decided on a move, then once more you need to look to see how your opponent can respond to it: all of his checks, captures and threats. If you're not doing this, you're playing hope-chess.

Originally posted by grit
I'm stick my head out of the Bates Motel long enough to ask this question. It seems my attitude is just trying not to lose. I know that study helps- especially tactics and staying alert to check all checks, but my basic attitude is that I try to stall losing. How can I play with confidence and try to be an attacking player?

Grit

Point everything at the enemy King, throw your Pawns at him and then start sacrificing stuff until Checkmate.

If he mates you first, study the game carefully and see how he did it.

Paul Keres swashes the buckle, or if you'd rather, buckles the swash in this one. Or maybe he didn't. Keres probably knew exactly what he was doing before move 1.



3 pawn sacrifices, one piece sacrifice, one exchange sacrifice, and one pseudo sacrifice.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
True. But there was this non-sub tournament once, which I joined. That didn't go well. I found the extra games were just too much for me, and I got even less attentive than I normally am, and lost hopelessly. So I'm wary of joining a club, because it might cause a similar overload.

...although, looking a little better, it seems that there are no games played between the current members... so perhaps I shall reconsider this.

Richard