Forums

Passive or Aggressive?

Sort:
Vanessa_Martinez
ninfan wrote:

And also, just to complement and clarify a little more our thread. Playing passively doesn't necessarily imply that this person has a defensive style... the circumstance(s) simply leads her/him to change and adapt... but in general he/she is an agressive one. Having as principle that, we can say that every player starts having a common objetive: capture the opponent's king. And hence who maintains the excessive attack might win in the end. So, passive is a consequence after all.

Being aggressive and passive at the same time or being aggressive and defensive at the same time. lol thats how i feel when im playing black agaisnt someone whos really good at chess.

ninfan
HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
ninfan wrote:

And also, just to complement and clarify a little more our thread. Playing passively doesn't necessarily imply that this person has a defensive style... the circumstance(s) simply leads her/him to change and adapt... but in general he/she is an agressive one. Having as principle that, we can say that every player starts having a common objetive: capture the opponent's king. And hence who maintains the excessive attack might win in the end. So, passive is a consequence after all.

"Passive" is a term in the opening mostly, but it just means a "wimpy" move, it means "not active".

Yeah lol... I know about that. I'm just saying passive rather than defensive to be clearer to Vanessa. I know about the definition. Anyway thanks for remembering, it's important to distinguish.

waffllemaster

At one point or another in blitz (I'm thinking 5/0 or faster here) you have to try to get the initiative or you're probably just going to lose on time. In longer games you can spend time to keep your superior position superior with accurate moves.  But in blitz you have to give your opponent something to think about because the clock quickly becomes more important than the board.

That's probably a good way to say it... you're trying to give your opponent something to think about (e.g. wild tactics or a messy position).

ninfan

Yeah Hurricane... passive has another connotation in a chess game, and it's already set up. Just trying to be a little clearer towards people who still doesn't know the complete definition of it.

WNYfoman

Passive or aggressive. It does not pay to dwell on which one you should play just on how you play. If you are an aggressive player, play aggressively. If your a passive player, play passively. To jump between them is very difficult. Myself, I am a passive aggresive player. I like to focus on defense but leave myself opportunities to strike if moment comes.

bean_Fischer

If you can't play aggresively then play passively.

Overlooseness

I think, attack or counter attack depends on situation.

Overlooseness

Chess depend's on reading ability.

mourinhofan

Agressive playing is better than playing passively