Passive or aggresive?

Which do you rather play? Just starting off I may have things all wrong but I find I'd rather go for the gusto early on and play queen for queen if I can. Is it better to do this or would you play defensive and try and save your queen (or other major pieces)

Originally posted by Dudermooner
Which do you rather play? Just starting off I may have things all wrong but I find I'd rather go for the gusto early on and play queen for queen if I can. Is it better to do this or would you play defensive and try and save your queen (or other major pieces)

I think you might be a little mistaken. The more pieces you keep on the board, the more 'aggressive' you are in the sense that the posibility of tactics increases drastically. Once the queens are traded, chess often becomes a strategical promotion attempt, rather than a heavy duty material grab. I don't really think there is an 'agressive' or 'defensive' style of chess. There are just good moves, and inferior moves. In the opening, when many different moves are equal, then it becomes a matter of personal preference, tactical or strategical.

Originally posted by ih8sens
I think you might be a little mistaken. The more pieces you keep on the board, the more 'aggressive' you are in the sense that the posibility of tactics increases drastically. Once the queens are traded, chess often becomes a strategical promotion attempt, rather than a heavy duty material grab. I don't really think there is an 'agressive' or 'defensive' ...[text shortened]... oves are equal, then it becomes a matter of personal preference, tactical or strategical.

Ahhh...gotcha. So what would you say the majority of players would do? Sacrafice queen for queen early on or defend the pieces by retreating or offering up a pawn or such.

Originally posted by Dudermooner
Ahhh...gotcha. So what would you say the majority of players would do? Sacrafice queen for queen early on or defend the pieces by retreating or offering up a pawn or such.

Most people are fairly balanced (I think anyways).

Capablanca was probably at one extreme, very simple chess.
Steinitz was probably at the other, very tactical.

I personally find that I avoid trading pieces, I like tactical games.

I play aggressively to people rated 1250 and under, but very passive and defensive to people rated 1251+, turning aggressive when the opportunity presents itself.

My opinion here is that aggressive chess you are constantly making threats (pins forks etc.) and threatening to win material or position due to them. You keep the initiative and your opponent must react. This is probably the easier way to play chess just because forced lines makes calculation a lot easier. Playing passively, there are so many choices that it is hard to come up with a good plan. Play aggressively.

I only trade queens if I can benifit from it, if it will create or accentuate a positional weakness or give me a tactical opprotunity.

Originally posted by Dudermooner
Ahhh...gotcha. So what would you say the majority of players would do? Sacrafice queen for queen early on or defend the pieces by retreating or offering up a pawn or such.

I find that often, when playing Black, I seek to trade Queens, if the Queen trade leaves White an inferior position; i.e. doubled pawns, isolated pawns, spatial disadvantage, etc. Then, I work my way quietly to the end game, whilst building upon said positional advantage. As White, I try hard to keep the given initiative, and look for agressive lines of attack. However, while Black, I will play the same way if White gives up a tempo to me.

I guess that's what makes chess so alluring to a point. There's so many alternate ways to view any given game as well as the endless possibilities to be considered playing as both white and black. I've yet to branch out and discover the better tactical approaches for each side of the board. Still just working on the basic moves for now. And trying to come up with incites and theories of my own.

Originally posted by Dudermooner
Ahhh...gotcha. So what would you say the majority of players would do? Sacrafice queen for queen early on or defend the pieces by retreating or offering up a pawn or such.

Just one point - if you trade like for like on the chess board it is called an 'exchange'. A sacrifice is the temporary giving up of a piece for some (hopefully) decisive gain (positional or material), often in the process of forcing checkmate.
You will develop your own style (aggressive or defensive) as you develop your game. However you must remember that aggressive play and suicidal play are a thin line apart, and often the best way to play is to be patient, and completely flexible. Trying to set yourself rules such as 'exchange queens early' or even 'exchange queens if you are black' are potentially deeply flawed. Always play to the requirements of the exact position in front of you. Exchanging queens as black may just as likely increase whites advantage by reducing your counterplay options as it may increase blacks chances by refuting whites attack. It will depend on the position at the time.
I am currently playing half a dozen players rated over 2000 in clan games. None are playing me any differently in the first dozen moves to the higher rated players they routinely play. Their decisive advantage will no doubt come, but as a result of accumilating small advantages throughout the opening and middlegame, until it is finally time to strike. They have not tried to be 'quick to the kill' just because they are rated so much higher. They are rated higher precisely because they are patient and play the best move, regardless of opposition.
Don't confuse being passive with being patient. Patience is a virtue in chess, being passive will routinely lead to disaster.

Originally posted by Policestate
Just one point - if you trade like for like on the chess board it is called an 'exchange'. A sacrifice is the temporary giving up of a piece for some (hopefully) decisive gain (positional or material), often in the process of forcing checkmate.
You will develop your own style (aggressive or defensive) as you develop your game. However you must remember ...[text shortened]... patient. Patience is a virtue in chess, being passive will routinely lead to disaster.

Well said. He/She articulated it better than any thus far.

Originally posted by Policestate
Just one point - if you trade like for like on the chess board it is called an 'exchange'. A sacrifice is the temporary giving up of a piece for some (hopefully) decisive gain (positional or material), often in the process of forcing checkmate.
You will develop your own style (aggressive or defensive) as you develop your game. However you must remember ...[text shortened]... patient. Patience is a virtue in chess, being passive will routinely lead to disaster.

That sounds like some great wisdom there.

Originally posted by Policestate
Just one point - if you trade like for like on the chess board it is called an 'exchange'. A sacrifice is the temporary giving up of a piece for some (hopefully) decisive gain (positional or material), often in the process of forcing checkmate.
You will develop your own style (aggressive or defensive) as you develop your game. However you must remember ...[text shortened]... patient. Patience is a virtue in chess, being passive will routinely lead to disaster.

Great piece of advice. Thank much.

Originally posted by ChessJester
That sounds like some great wisdom there.

Thank you to both of you.

Maybe I should grow a white beard?

Originally posted by Policestate
Thank you to both of you.

Maybe I should grow a white beard?

Yes. Maybe you should move to a high mountain top as well. 😉