Attack vs Defense

Which is better Attack or Defense

Attack is always better

Yes I will also say Anand, Carlsen and many titled players are attacking players.

Then what is your problem?

Overload Attack then one pice will defending some pieces and the overloaded piece will be gone by Attack

^^^ This.

Attack is better not defense

Here is an extract of what Botvinnik says in his assessment of Tal,who is primarily known as a formidable attacking player,and rightly so."But after 'bluffing' and ending up in a bad position,he resourcefully and cunningly exploits every chance,and is highly tenacious in defense." In other words,even great attacking players,know very well how to defend if the circumstances demand that they do so.

So, if you were so sure of the answer, why'd you ask the question in the first place?

Is that so for destroying defenders attack is needed 

For destroying attackers, defense is needed... 

They're types of players, not particular pieces...

True... We lower rateds tend to think of our opponents as either passive or aggressive. Thus "attackers" and "defenders".

Attack will destroy defences

That is a classic Romantic opening. Woe betide you if you get into the endgame...

Passive means it will not do anything just it will go!

Passive is about using the material loss of the aggressive players against them in the endgame.

pfren, I would have to say that considering the human element, the results favor the attacker. Chess between one human and another human is no longer scientific. Psychologically, it is an advantage to be attacking.

I've also noticed that counter attacks are more successful than initial attacks.