I say it depends on your style and the position at hand. The position, of course, is the overriding factor. If you have stalled the attack, have the advantage, but have a glaringly exploitable weakness, that must get first consideration.
All other things being equal, and the position has no direct threats to deal with, I say play to your strength; play your game. If you do better setting up a strong defense and letting the other player shatter themselves with attempts to break through, then stick with that plan. If however, you are a highly aggressive player, push for all you have.
Sometimes you might want to step out of your comfort zone if it pushes your opponent even further out of his. Let's say, in the above example, that you know your opponent does not like being on the defensive, then pushing the attach, even if you are normally a reserved player, can create such discomfort for the other side that they start stumbling.
I had an OTB game with a friend that went just like that. I normally like to set a position, open a line, and coordinate an attack. Then I fall back and start the process over. My friend is highly aggressive and stays on the offensive. He had a stumble in his opening attack and I countered. I kept trading and pushing, never letting him get his stride back. He eventually dropped his Queen and the game ended shortly afterward.
Don't know if this answers your question specifically, but it is a fun discussion.
--SmittyG
There's a basic rule of thumb that answers your question: 'If one has obtained the advantage,one MUST attack.Otherwise,the advantage will disappear'.It doesn't depend on the position.If you attack and lose this either means your attack wasn't well thought ou,either you did NOT have the advantage.
It is not easy to know who has the advantage,even the top-GM's make mistakes in that area.Let alone us fish(speaking for myself
😉)
Originally posted by SmittyGAh!But then you don't have 'THE' advantage,you have 'A'(material) advantage.
I could see that for a positional advantage; but can't quite see the pressure if the advantage is material.
--SmittyG
There's a big difference,with 'a' advantage(in material),it is very well possible you get mated soon,'cause your opponent has 'the' advantage.
Material at itself means nothing,it depends what you can do with it.
In chess,when one speaks of having 'the advantage'it is always positional,never material.Though it can be both.
Example: White is up 2 rooks and a queen,but,Black mates in 3.Do you say white has the advantage?I think not😉
Originally posted by SirLoseALotI think the position I am in has only a marginal material advantage. I have taken BK and white has taken pk. But I am further developed. It is very early and white made an aggressive early attack.
Ah!But then you don't have 'THE' advantage,you have 'A'(material) advantage.
There's a big difference,with 'a' advantage(in material),it is very well possible you get mated soon,'cause your opponent has 'the' advantage.
Material at itself means nothing,it depends what you can do with it.
In chess,when one speaks of having 'the advantage'i ...[text shortened]... is up 2 rooks and a queen,but,Black mates in 3.Do you say white has the advantage?I think not😉
Hmm, I think there is a developing move that allows me either action next turn. White will not be able to move into an attack next turn anyways.
Originally posted by SirLoseALotI'd question that. Take the starting position, and remove white's queen. Black has 'the' winning advantage. Gil.
Ah!But then you don't have 'THE' advantage,you have 'A'(material) advantage.
There's a big difference,with 'a' advantage(in material),it is very well possible you get mated soon,'cause your opponent has 'the' advantage.
Material at itself means nothing,it depends what you can do with it.
In chess,when one speaks of having 'the advantage'i ...[text shortened]... is up 2 rooks and a queen,but,Black mates in 3.Do you say white has the advantage?I think not😉
Originally posted by gregofthewebJust to be sure here: we are talking theoretically about chess in general, right? This isn't about strategy in a specific on-going game of yours, correct?
I think the position I am in has only a marginal material advantage. I have taken BK and white has taken pk. But I am further developed. It is very early and white made an aggressive early attack.
Hmm, I think there is a developing move that allows me either action next turn. White will not be able to move into an attack next turn anyways.
--SmittyG
Originally posted by SirLoseALotK vs. K Q white has both! 😀
Ah!But then you don't have 'THE' advantage,you have 'A'(material) advantage.
There's a big difference,with 'a' advantage(in material),it is very well possible you get mated soon,'cause your opponent has 'the' advantage.
Material at itself means nothing,it depends what you can do with it.
In chess,when one speaks of having 'the advantage'i ...[text shortened]... is up 2 rooks and a queen,but,Black mates in 3.Do you say white has the advantage?I think not😉
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Did I say anything about K vs K-Q??😕
K vs. K Q white has both! 😀
I did say that both a positional and a material advantage was possible.
But,I stand corrected,Sintubin is right.One can have an equal position,positionally speaking,with a winning material advantage.
Though one might argue that the position is equal,in that case....
I give up,chess is too hard for me😛