In all my reading of chess theory, I've never had this question addressed: When one opponent (say, White) piles on the attack on one of Black's pieces or pawns, does wisdom dictate that Black match the attacking forces if he can? It would seem so, but always? Or nearly always? I stopped matching an opponent's piling up, and he had one or two more pieces attacking one of mine than I had defending. At this point I got a bit worried, but as it turned out, I prevailed anyway. Was I lucky? Was I foolish? Wherein layeth the path of wisdom? Thanks.
If you have better things to do then do that instead of defend. Like if he's playing on the queenside and piling up his pieces there and he's kingside is undefended and you can attack his kingside then forget about him piling up and go for his king. His pieces would be to far away to help. If he's piling up on one of your pawns then sometimes just let him cus its just a pawn, unless if its really important.
Mostly what happens if that one of your pieces is pinned and then he piles up rooks and queen's against it. If you can protect your piece then do so, otherwise just give is up.
If there is only 1 open file, then you should contest his rooks on there.Don't let him get into your camp.
In theory the reason your opponent would be piling forces onto a particular square is because it is a key square for some reason. If you think they are incorrect, you can ignore it and focus your efforts elsewhere.
Of course, if they are right you just let them get a foothold on critical territory and you will probably pay a price for that later 😉
A related question of no practical value, but of theoretical interest, at least to me: To pile on the attack, to the tune of 4 or 5 attacking pieces, would this be a strategy or tactics? Seems to me it would fall half way between the two, if we consider strategy long-term planning and tactics short-term execution. Seems to be a medium-term goal.
Originally posted by bassoIf you can win the piece, then it's probably a good idea to pile on. If it's inconvient for your opponent to move it, it's probably a good idea to pile on.
A related question of no practical value, but of theoretical interest, at least to me: To pile on the attack, to the tune of 4 or 5 attacking pieces, would this be a strategy or tactics? Seems to me it would fall half way between the two, if we consider strategy long-term planning and tactics short-term execution. Seems to be a medium-term goal.
Averbakh's "Chess Tactics for Advanced Players," discusses this in great detail. You're under no obligation to match your opponent piece for piece over an attacked square or to defend a piece. Sometimes the attacked piece can simply move and take up residence at another square. Even more interesting is when you ignore your opponent's attack and simply counterattack something in your opponent's camp.