The fact is that attacking is easier then defending.  The defender has to see everything.  Looking at the games of a player like Karpov can be misleading, because he sees everything and makes it look easy.   You have to have very good tactical vision to play like Karpov.

What would be the benefits of defensive play, then?

...I was put out of my element when he kept sacrficing, attacking and exchanging material.

I remember climbing my way up a chess ladder at work many years ago. The guy who gave me the most headaches was someone whom I considered to be a bad chess player. I would be working on strategy to set up a tactic.

I would be deep in thought, extrapolating how I was going to destroy him. However, besides engaging in loud conversation with anyone hanging around...of course, only during my moves...he would swap out material at each and every opportunity. For no strategic or tactical benefit.

It would irritate the hell out of me. I couldn't seem to put any plan into action. We'd each end up with a king and a few pawns hopping around in a game that seemed to be more like checkers than chess. And, he was quite good at that.

I eventually did beat him, and I made it to the top of the chess ladder. But, I hated how he played. Now, looking back, I realize that how the opponent plays...aggressive, defensive, piece exchanges, open game, closed game, etc. is his business (the loud talking was, of course, just obnoxious behavior).

If I am going to be good enough, then I have to be good enough regardless of the opponent's style...even if I might find it annoying.

I learned another lesson about exchanging pieces. At a chess club, this guy was really good. Better than me. What he would do is just play a solid game. No blunders. Then, when he'd get a piece ahead...let's say 3 points...he would say: "Now we are going to simplify." Then he'd make exchanges down to the situation where his 3 point advantage would be leveraged into a major advantage. I've got a king and two pawns; he has a king, two pawns and a bishop. Go figure who's going to win (ceteris paribus).

The first guy was just a jerk, although hard to beat (how many guys do you know who suck at the beginning and middle game but excel at the end game?).

The second guy really taught me a lesson...one which I apply, whenever needed.

You only defend when you have to...

It was chess with my friend (who I never played against because I didn't know he played) on the grass in a park in Poland. 

Time: No time only a "courtesy clock". Which is about 1-2min a move after the standard openings.

-----------------

@All: Thank you very much for your time, hints and advice. 

It is good to be aggressive when the time is right but for me the nuances and "poetry" of a closed, defensive game draws more of my interest. 

Rebuffing a hyperaggressive attack and then counterattacking puts a smile on my face because I like to feel the attackers aggression turn on him which then causes his weapons to become liabilities. 

offence is the best defence. thats the style they are playing.. it does not matter what type it is.. they are attacking you and are trying to shut you down. you need to turn it around so you can  put then on the defensive position.. control the game is key to winning. that i lack myself at the moment .as im still i newbie

juufa72 wrote:

It was chess with my friend (who I never played against because I didn't know he played) on the grass in a park in Poland. 

Time: No time only a "courtesy clock". Which is about 1-2min a move after the standard openings.    

Thanks for your answers.

Even with those time limits if he knows the openings better than you do you will lose.  Strong players use short time limits such as blitz (5min) chess to reinforce the memorized lines in their repertoire and to sharpen their time pressure skills with the clock for when they face those types of situtations in otb tournament games. 

The best solution I can suggest given your anwers is to do what Capablance use to do.  Exchange at every opportunity.  Take away his weapons and play for the endgame.  Do not exchange if you are losing the minor exchange (your B for his N) unless you can clearly see that it is advantageous to your position.  Do not allow him to get the B pair in an open pawn position. For the endgame Bishops are better in most open pawn positions with pawns on both sides of the board because Bs can get across the board in one move, Ns take 4-5.  Knights are better in most closed pawn positions or with pawns on only one side of the board especially if he can post a N on a central square defended by a pawn that cannot be driven off by one of your pawns. 

If he has good endgame technique he will be looking to acquire some or all of those advantages I mentioned above, or he will steer the game into a R and pawn endgame.  The main thing to remember is that most R and p endgames are a draw.  Another thing you might already know is that your Rook(s) belong behind passer enemy pawns.

@juufa72

Read all of the posts in your forum topic.  Almost all of them tell you to counter attack and recognize the holes in your opponents attack, return sacrificed material, exchange in order to simplify the position, etc.  There is something missing.  There are no specifics about how you acquire the playing strength to recognize those opportunities in the position.  There is a way for you to acquire the playing strength but it will require some time.  It will probably take about 3 months.

I am going to use an example from professional and college basketball to explain the reason why you have to study and practice basic checkmate endgames.  How does the player know how much arm strength and leg strength to use to swish a 3-pointer?  The answer is simple, it's muscle memory.  He has practiced that shot so many times that he can do it in his sleep.  He can see the ball going through the hoop in his mind and at the same time his muscle memory kicks in.

It is the same with endgames in chess.  Take for example the basic checkmate endgames in chess.  What you have to know is that in every basic checkmate endgame the same endgame technique is used.  I call it corralling the king. It is the same in all of them (K+R vs. K, K+Q vs. K, K+2Bs vs. K, K+B+N vs. K), you fence the king in, you drive him into the corner by making the fenced in area smaller and smaller and then deliver mate. 

You have to practice those basic checkmates until you can do them in your sleep.  Then, when you are playing a game something magical happens.  Those same basic fencing in(corraling) patterns will become apparent to you when a similar pattern is reached in a game that you are playing, even though it is mixed in with pawns and other pieces in the position you are looking at.   No matter whether it is your position or your opponent's that pattern will jump up off the chess board and smack you in the forehead.  I know, I have had it happen to me.  Because, I can do the basic checkmate endgames in my sleep.

The same rule applies to all endgames.  You have to practice them so much that you can do them in your sleep.

Anyway, good luck with becoming a 'professional gunslinger' very strong player. 

hmmm... I disagree you need to counter-attack sharply. Ali won by keep his material (strength) up while Foreman lost his. Then Ali won the endgame easily. There was no counter-attack by him early on. Who is going to claim that you should passively throw around a queen vs rook ending? Nobody says that, that is to be won, so defensive play will do more than "get you so far".

Most aggressive attacks are defeated by the defender saying "so what, where's your attack?" and tying up all loose ends so that the attacker has no attacking chances for his material. It may be exchanging down material or just by solid defensive play.

There is no need to take chances with a counter-attack, best to make the position sterile with you ahead and a little technique will win you the game. And if you can't do that, then you need to work on it.

Exactly, it appears the poster transpo above that said all the previous posters were saying counter-attack missed your post.

Well...thanks for your reply!

Its only my opinion, that i prefer playing against a counter player instead of a strong defender, because while its complicate to shut down your position on your kingside and launch an attack in the centre of against my king on the other side AT THE SAME TIME!

The question is, which side is faster, the attacker or the counter-attacker...but playing against a defense wall is much harder and sometimes very frustrating for the tactical player...

LOL.

Give me the initiative and I'm happy. I have no qualms against an opponent that will let me take shots at him.

I agree with you when you meet a poor and anxious defender...its the paradise for attackers, but i speak of experienced players with good defensive skills, who dont fall in panic when my Queen hits the h5-square and my rooks are doubled on the open f-file.

The fact is that any player who sets out to play a certain way is limiting himself.  In every single case, whether or not a passive and solid defense is better than a risky counterattack depends entirely upon the position.  There is no general rule which can tell you, or even guide you.  Even positions which appear to be "classic" examples of a particular approach are subject to what the old Soviet school termed "concrete analysis" - which just means you have to look at everything, in every position, general rules don't matter.

So the point is that you shouldn't play a different move in position X when you face an aggressive player than when you play a defensive or when you face Anand or when you face your grandmother who just learned the moves.  In any given position, you should find the best move you can find, as if you were playing the World Champ.

Do that, and your actual opponent doesn't matter.

Why are you assuming that once the attack peters out, the attacker will be down on material, or in an inferior position?

Well, I played him again and I took the advice to try to counter-attack. I can't say that it "worked". Maybe due to bad moves on his behalf, I was able to repel his attack and deliver a checkmate? 

and Game 2

Pardon the blunders. We're far from being masters of this game. 

 

The second game is a known bad line of the Chigorin Defense by transpositon, White just plays 5 Qa4+ c6  6 b4 cxb3  7 axb3 b6  8 b4 Nb7  9 dxc6 oops!

And Ali was NOT merely conserving energy in the Foreman fight, a close watch of it clearly shows he was counterpunching throughout, and was probably landing as many blows as Foreman because he was blocking almost everything Foreman threw.

The energy conservation was in staying on the ropes instead of dancing about the ring in his old style, which would have needlessly expended his own energy while conserving Foreman's, since he would not be throwing as many punches that way.