Of course, I would like to see an example were a passive defense has the ability to take over a game without having to wait for an opponent's blunder, if anybody thinks they have an example.
the reason i dont like passive defenses...
Sort:
It seems like being passive (vs aggressive) at defense is certainly already conceding to the opponent. When I was reading up on the hypermodern style long ago (pawn structure, prophylaxis, zugzwang, etc), I thought there was a way to build a strong defense but be positionally "agressive'. I've been able to play some games like that but it's not really my style. I play "safe" but spring the attack only after gaining some sort of positional advantage. My brain can't compute highly complex, imbalanced, attacking games so I try to stay away from them.
I actually prefer passive defenses right now because it puts the impetus on your opponent to make something happen. If you can defend accurately they'll either beat themselves to death on your defenses allowing you to counter-attack against their uncoordinated defenses, or worst-case scenario, you hold the draw. However, nothing is worse than trying to defend after you have just slipped up against an attacking opponent. It's because of situations like those that are making me switch up my repertoire to more aggressive systems.
s_dot_nookums wrote:
Of course, I would like to see an example were a passive defense has the ability to take over a game without having to wait for an opponent's blunder, if anybody thinks they have an example.
this all, of course, depends on your definition of the word passive. Many people would call the hedgehog formation very passive(and I think I would). But, it is very dangerous for white. Many people have overextended and found themselves stung by the defense.
There are not inferior defensive systems only bad players...
I am trying to play the French right now, and I am doing it because I never really liked it. I am hoping to teach myself patience in my chess. At my level, if you play sound positional defense, the opponent will screw up and give you chances most of the time.
s_dot_nookums wrote:
It is my opinion that a passive defense is no good. It gives the fate of the game to your opponent. If opponent wins, they beat you. If opponent loses, they beat themself. A passive defender is float on a river.
In general, I agree. Passive play usually loses. But in this game, black didn't really have a passive defense. 6. ...f6 and 8. ...g5?? were big blunders.
Missed 11. Ne5+ Rg6 12. Bxg6+ hxg6 13. Qxg6+ Ke7 14. Qf7#
It is my opinion that a passive defense is no good. It gives the fate of the game to your opponent. If opponent wins, they beat you. If opponent loses, they beat themself. A passive defender is float on a river.