How Do I Attack In Chess?

Hello everyone. I just commented on a thread pertaining to attacking chess and I would like to know how to do it more often. I like to attack in my games but I don't like to memorize openings very much.

I have heard things about players getting to 2000 without using opening books. How do you do this? I think I can attack well as long as I don't blunder but it is difficult for me to get these positions in the opening. I would love to play things like the king's gambit but there is so much theory there and I don't want to play it.

Does anyone have any ideas about what I can do?

apply yourself to basic chess..learn openings,tactics training, play better players----kings gambit and the like require alot of experience.Just see if u can learn enough too be steady and have an idea what's going on w/ your chess game.   good luck

1. Point pieces at the king.

2. Sacrifice your queen.

3. ???

4. Checkmate!

If you do not first learn how to defend then attack is likely to lead to defeat.

Certainly KG would let you discover if attacking-chess-style suits or not! :)

( Except few Americans play e4 because have been instructed in d4 even though current master-play trends the other way today )

The easiest way to get to a 2000 rating without using opening books is quite simple: Lie about your rating. I wouldn't believe anyone had such a rating after making this claim without some sort of verification.

The trouble is why would you want it? (2000+ rating)

The vast majority of 2000+ players here on chess.com are fraudulent & use software-assistance in their games.

If you want 2000+ then get a coach & play OTB games in your locale.

This would be the first rung on the ladder to expertise in chess & if continue to advance then 2200 WILL get you a title.

Knives, flamethrowers and assault rifles are suggested.

Keep in mind a couple things:

You do not attack in chess when you feel like it. You attack in chess when the position calls for it. Ussually when you dont attack and the position calls for it, you will ussually lose your advantage. Chess is an objective game. This is one of the reasons why SuperGM's draw very often, a lot of the time they do not get the opportunity to build a position that requires them to attack. And just because you have to attack it does not mean you are winning also. One side can be attacking and the other defending and the position be completly equal.

If you attack when you should be defending, or consolidating your  position. You are going to overextend your pieces, lose, and worst you will become a one dimensional player who is going to plateau before you reach 2000.

A  better question is: How do I recognize when I should attack in chess?

Some tips.

1. A classic by Vladimir Vuckovic "Art of Attack in Chess" is a good book on the subject.

2. Do a lot of tactics, when you can see the moves that lose material for you, you are more likely to pick better moves in your own game. Also you see combinations. And one of the most important thing. You learn how to utilize "tempos" more efficiently in the attack. Amateurs like us tend to do time wasting moves to prevent stuff,and allow the oponent to defend. When you are tacticly skilled you might not prevent a move you would have prevented before( By "before" I mean: before you were tacticly skilled). Because sometimes those moves you wasted time preventing. lose material, so there is no need to prevent them. Tactics also help your visualization, so when there are sharp postitions (which usually agresive playes tend to favor) you will feel more at home.

More often than not. Those players that are about 2000 strenght without opening knowledge are very tacticly strong. So they play off beat openings, take the opponent into complications and they feel right at home.

3. Study games of aggresive playes like Tal, Topalov, Morphy, Keres.

4. Pick openings that encourage your type of game. If you are an agresive player that likes to attack. Then you should not play the Petroff against e4. The sicilian would be more convinient, as an example.

5. Bad News: If you are going to play agressive openings like Kings Gambit, Smith Morra Gambit etc. there is ussually a lot of theory always. Simply becasue agresive openings are sharp, and going in unprepared is like re-inventing the wheel and you are more likely to make a mistake. If there was an agresive opening that did not requiered that much theory I think almost everyone would be playing it, and after a while people would beat it to death until it bacame just another opening with a huge amount of theory.

Thank you for all the advice. I just want to see what playing chess at 2000 is like but I would like to get there by attacking chess. I have been watching many games in the sicilian defence and saw many games where White and Black sacrifice pieces in the middlegame to attack and I would like to get in positions like this more often.

I think I will use 1.e4 because I think it's easier to attack when the kingside pieces are developed first. I would play kings gambit but I am worried about moves like g5 that don't make much sense to me.

Actually, there are aggressive openings that don't require tons of theory at a lower level. For instance, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, the Veresov, and the Chigorin. These are not very well-known openings (although my versovs usually end up as Frenches), so your opponent does not know the theory (there IS theory, but you don't really need very much of it).

For example, by playing this KG game (notice it only follows the book opening to 3. Nf3, you need not go very deep into the man lines to use an opening to it's full potential.  In fact trying different things may also help improve your overall chess skill, and who knows maybe you'll decide you like to play the opening with slight modifications to suit your style), I discovered that an attacking style suits me:

Sure, my oponent made quite a few blunders, but that's what's good about an attacking style, you go at your opponent so much he collapses under pressure, making blunders that make winning that much easier.

http://www.chess.com/echess/players

Sorry, but how does that prove that the vast majority are cheating?

I do not have the patience to explain this to you.

Suffice to say the ratings of the top 500 players have been decimated over the last 2yrs since more stringent detection-methods were introduced.

It is not a worry for you.

usefull sacs pins can be key sometimes like this

Well if you can't be bothered to explain, maybe u should steer clear of such sweeping statements in future, which to my mind, bring this site into direpute.

Please accept my apologies in taking you away from your deeply thought out conspiracy theories which I clearly could not even wish to be able to understand. 

What are you drinking? Stella??

Hardly ''theory'' when thousands have been banned is fact.