Aggresive or Deffensive?

I know some people go straight into attack when they open and some like to get their defenses up first.  So I want to know what the rest of you guys are thinking...  Do you usually open with some sort of trap? Or do you start going into defense to prevent traps?

Good players play the position. Only after 2200+ can players really have a "style".

Im not so sure about that...

I play the positions, but I have my preference for the types of positions I want to be in as does everybody and will strive to reach them.

Ahehe he he

-sloppy joe

I'll have to stick with rich on this.

Im an attacker...but not too hasty, for example I wait for my opponent to castle, and then 1. If the position is kinda closed but I have attacking chances, I will not castle to not waste a tempo, or 2. I castle the opposite way or 3. If the queens are off the board, I will start moving my king and/or Kingside pawns!

+1 on nonsense.

So if one 1800 player likes to open as White with Nf3, g3, Bg2, d3 and another 1800 player likes to open with e4 and then employ gambit lines, there's no difference in style? Duh...

Chosing an opening that gives you positions that you like vs. Stye (moves that are commital to a positions justifications, with perfect reason). Simular but not the same.

I realize this is hard for some players to come to terms with.

(I will not comment further for the argument will not end and no descision will be reached)

I tend to emphasize defense first and have a positional STYLE. This is a necessity since I am constantly playing great attacking players who are better calculators than I am. I have learned that I have to have flexible response capabilities to be able to answer the ingenious attacks they throw at me. I must bog them down, confuse them, and place my pieces so I will be the last man standing after the smoke clears.

i agree. sub <1000 player's can have a style. perhap's a foolish or losing one, but a style nevertheless

offence is the best defence, is'nt it?

No decision will be reached because everyone will agree you're wrong and you won't accept it.

Give 2 players the same position 8 moves deep in the Dragon. One might want to go for the typical h4-g4 kingside attacking scheme, one might want to go for the more positional Nd5 type theme.

The fact remains, whether you agree with it or not, that give 2 players the same position, and they'll have different ideas of how they'd like to proceed.

development imo

In my opinion, I like to go into quiet positions without traps lurking close by. Usually, when you get into a position to attack you start with e4 and it eventually turn the board into a mine field unless you play the Italian game. d4 usually makes the game more cautious and defensive. It really depends in what type of position you're in. I prefer the slow positional games and close endgames because I enjoy them more and my most impressive wins were in those types of games. 

Are you out of your frikken mind??  Those are the moves to the KIA (kings indian attack), one of the most common,  versatile and popular openings in the history of chess.  With colors reversed those are the moves of the "kings Indian defense", which btw is/was a favorite to some of the strongest players in the history of modern chess, Fischer included.  Try to know what you're talking about before you spout off and try not to be a dumb ass.

LOL rich can't stop saying stupid things because he can't tell the difference between fact and brain dead foolishness.

I think most people know to not take anything he says seriously.

My approach is sort of passive to begin with, I open up in correlation to what my opponent does and should he expose the board I try to take advantage.

Two things:

1. We're talking about weaker players. Yes, different weak players may choose moves all over the place given some position. However, most of those moves will just be weak! That's not a sign that they have different styles, just that they are weak players. Stronger players will agree more often.

2. A difference in taste given a single position is not automatically a difference in style. If you want to say player X has style A, that means he has similar tastes as other players with style A over a wide range of positions. If he sides with players of style A in some positions and side B in others, he has neither style.

But mostly, weak players who say they have an attacking style are just players who look for "attacking moves" even in positions that don't call for an attack at all. That's not a matter of style, that's just weak chess.

His point was weaker than 2200. I am weaker than 2200, but I have a sense of my own style. And I have had a sense of my own style when my rating was considerably below what it is now (~2100 elo in British terms).

While I agree that properly weak players just like to attack because that's all they want to do, that ceiling is way, way below 2200. I mean, I grew out of that as a kid when I was 1600.

Weak moves may just be weak, but this doesn't mean they haven't ended up choosing those moves because of how they view specific features of the position. One player 'sees' a position in a primarily prophylactic manner, another sees a position as an opportunity to grab space, or whatever. The fact their reasoning is erroneous isn't all that relevant.

With regards to 2), I was rather hoping people would be able to extrapolate the point. Perhaps not :/

Actually, I kind of agree with Syntax_error when it comes to the style debate here.

"Style" just seems like such a strong word that only the greater players can posess.

I'm just looking at myself.  I only average around a 1400 point status and I don't concider myself having my own style.

I know that I like to attack more than defend, but this doesn't seem to define something I'd call mine.  It's just what I prefer.

What I think Syntax_error was really trying to say is that only the stronger players, ones with a vast knowledge of the game, start developing their own style(something that defines them).  2200, to Syntax, probably just seemed like a good average point set to tell if a person knows enough about the game.

The word "style" seems like something that really isn't going to change.  It's who you are in the game.  Right now, I know that I don't know enough to have a style of my own because my opinions may change with greater knowledge of the game.

Until you develope your own style, all you really have are preferences, IMO.