Aggresive or Deffensive?

i try to go to attacking first by trying to control the center although its a little bit harder to do.  i don't want to be on the defensive because i usually make sloppy moves.

It's quite possible. More often at least some aggressive action will be necessary of course, but that doesn't mean that the winning player can't have played a great defense (prophylaxis) for some or most of the game.

It's like build a "trap"and wait the enemi who advance in front!no?

Not at all. A player playing prophylactically will basically try to pick out their opponent's best options and literally prevent them. Hoping for your opponent to fall into some sort of trap has nothing to do with it.

I suspect that's because Elubus's comment is actually probably quite sound.

offense sells tickets, but defense wins games.

It's a nice quote. But if you think about it that's completely wrong. 

What?

Obviously something has to happen, but of course it can just be positional pressure, stuff like that. A strong "defensive" player (probably not the best word) when he gets a positional advantage doesn't (or at least shouldn't!) just sit there waiting for his opponent to attack, when he has no justification to attack. If you win a pawn, yes that pawn can queen and mate, but it's definitley not offensive in the sense of swarming the pieces near the king immediately, and I don't consider someone mating with king and queen vs. king automatically aggressive. They're really called "defensive" because they don't mind defending an attack, at least if the attacker had to sac a pawn or something. A good player in any case will attack when there is a very clear opportunity to do it (but not an unclear sac) but will not try to force the issue, which an offensive player will more likely do.

That post was directed at Knightcover. Anyway, I don't understand what you're trying to argue for. Ok, I guess it's not possible to take absolutely no aggressive action at all if you want to be pedantic. But the only thing I've been arguing against is your notion that "only the attacker wins". Just because some capture or threat has been made doesn't mean that the guy who has won because of them had to have played a "pure attacking game".

Yeah a perfect execution is like a thousand points away. If I gained that much and had the same style of play, just better execution, I guess the style would get more respect, but it's really just how I use the style, not the style itself. Alekhine was aggressive, but he still had positional understanding and that incredible calculation that nobody would dare to consider, and I'm sure a weak player would like to do that (same style) but never comes close, because he doesn't have that calculating power or the positional understanding to get to positions where combinations exist. but the intentions at the basic level are similar.

But that "style" that people like blissturd are describing I think I have, and that's much earlier than GM. I described it vividly, didn't I? And I even mentioned drawbacks that a GM would not have since it's not perfect, like having trouble calculating tactical pawn breaks.

Please re-read Elubus's post. You don't seem to understand his point at all. He never suggested he's anywhere near the level of someone like Karpov.

I know you are.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with me being close to his level, but what I like to achieve in a game is similar (of course not exactly the same, we are all different), but how he does it is still way beyond my level. The way he executes it is different, not so much the style.

I have no idea what your point is. Did you even read what I wrote?

Reuben fine said the best idea against hippo like openings was that Bc4 Bf4 setup, but I disagree, as if those center pawns are good for one thing it's blocking out pieces and preventing pawn breaks, which are very hard without a further c4 or f4 (which I think white should do). Because against the hippo it's all about breaking through so what could be wrong with more pawn advances?

A better example of what? Remember you're trying to defend your comment "only the attacker wins". Quite clearly that isn't proven by that game as Black played a mixture of attack and defense.

Actually that's usually what I do. I would then get all of my pieces to active squares, rooks to the central files, (this is assuming black doesn't make a pawn advance, if he does, then usually you can advance one of your center pawns with a cramp) and I figure d5 or something could probably eventually be played unlike setups without the bishop pawns forward.

lol I think there must be a misunderstanding here somewhere. Can't you just agree that your comment "only the attacker wins" wasn't correct? If it didn't mean that attacking is the only way to go then what did it mean?

Saying "only the attacker wins" seems like a strange way of putting that because just because someone has done a bit of attacking during the game doesn't mean they can be considered an "attacker", but ok sorry, my bad. I guess I've just misunderstood what you meant all along.