1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsGenerally white is attempting to seize control of the centre. Seizing control implies aggression. Preventing such seizure implies defence.
Sounds good to me, but a little vague. What is White "attacking" immediately?
In most "standard" openings this is whites intent, sometimes very agressively such as in the Kings Gambit, sometimes solidly like in the Ruy Lopez and sometimes quietly such as in the Guico Piano but in all cases white by trying to seize the centre is being "aggressive" whereas black is trying to obtain equality (i.e. defend).
Aggressive tries by black do exist but tend to be less sound than such tries by white so tend to be avoided at master level.
I realise this is rather obtuse and the question perhaps means should white and black deliberately choose a more aggressive option rather than a more solid opening. My choice will always be the former as "solid" openings tend to be "closed" and get me frustrated when I make mistakes (i.e. blunder). So for example as black I try and steer a Ruy Lopez into an "Open" which tends to be more aggressive and a Guico Piano into a 2 Knights which can create fireworks. Typically, in my opinion, in such "wild" position both sides will have increased chances of winning and losing.
Conversely if white leans too much towards defence in the opening white risks losing or drawing whereas if black tries to be too aggressive he increases the chances of defeat.
1 edit
Originally posted by zebanoprobably the best lessons for initiative's strength for me, has been fighting in a lost position. you already know that no sane move will get you out of it, but some crazy sac for initiative will suddenly get you chances to draw, and your opponent has to play very accurately to actually win.
I'm not the most aggressive player around, but I much prefer having the initiative to my opponent having it.
after games like that I always start thinking what you could do with similar initiative in a good position, when you can almost win in a bad one. and in fact, just last night after resigning against caissad4, I confirmed I had a crushing sac earlier in the game. I did smell a mate in the air, but I just couldn't make it work regardless of the huge amount of time I used on it. so, contrary to my intuition, I decided to 'play safe' for once and not sac. and now it turns out in post analysis that the sac is not a mate, but still just crushing. (but to be fair, I did drop a piece in the opening, which she missed, so hypothetically thinking the game should've ended even sooner... which gives me some comfort.)
As no theoretical or established winning advantage exists for either side before and immediately after the first move,the most logical method of play is to continue to play as aggressively as board position circumstances permit in order to achieve a winning position either during the main middle game phase,or at or near the end game part of the game. During the entire game defensive considerations should be employed as and when circumstances dictate their employment,but should not be used as a substitute or replacement for correct and accurate attacking moves throughout the game. Purely defensive moves do not win games of chess[except where opponents select poor or not best moves].
Originally posted by magnublmAt the start of every chess game, the position is levll. You can't play "aggressively" or "defensively" until someone violates the equilibrium of the game. Learn how to evaluate the position on the board and spot when someone has violated the equilibrium and you will know whether to attack, defend or maneuver for a better position.
As White, do you think it's better to play aggressively or defensively? Or is it not that simple? Same goes for Black, do you think it's better to be aggressive or defensive? Does having the first move as White say or theoretically suggest that White should play aggressively or defensively?
I've been playing "serious" chess for only 5 years now, and I'm ...[text shortened]... ting on switching to an aggressive opening or defense. Looking forward to your thoughts.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThat's not always the case. Sometimes White is forced to be aggressive or he may even be worse. For example, if White plays very quietly and passively against the Dragon Sicilian, he will soon find himself worse. The Dragon, if Black is given enough time will squash White and his structure is better for the endgame anyway. Thus, you must play within the position.
At the start of every chess game, the position is levll. You can't play "aggressively" or "defensively" until someone violates the equilibrium of the game. Learn how to evaluate the position on the board and spot when someone has violated the equilibrium and you will know whether to attack, defend or maneuver for a better position.
Originally posted by MarinkatombNote also that to be successful defensively means that you must be a tactical monster. You must be able to see and counter the tactics used against you to the point where you can counterattack at the slightest mistake.
I can think of only one truely defensive GM and that was Petrosian. Pretty much all the rest played aggressively so i'd probably go with the latter...