Most of the time, if you do not attack your opponent or put any sort of pressure on him, they are not likely to make mistakes. If you are waiting for him to make the first mistake, waiting around will not help.
Are you offensive or defensive player?
Sort:
May 6, 2014
0
#3
I would consider myself an offensive player. I would argue though that there isn't really such a thing as a "defensive" player. Any decent player is making threats and pressurizing pieces. If you just sit back and wait for a mistake thing's aren't going to end very well. A better question might be are you an aggressive player or a slower, positional player.
Ok yeah, by offensive player I meant attacking 90% of game, or even more. Thats my style though. I rarely ever consider of "defending", only when I am close to getting a check mate
People say I'm very offensive all the time, but in a different context...
brumtown wrote:
People say I'm very offensive all the time, but in a different context...
Ok... Thats... Be careful with that... You might get this little paper called "restraining order". You don't want that trust me
May 6, 2014
0
#7
Doing a minimum of defense is a necessity to be a good attacking player though. Tal, one of the greatest attackers ever, was a firm believer in castling and completing development first. There are exceptions, but if you haven't seen to your king safety at all, you might be best served waiting to attack. Initiative is everything, and you can't take it if your king is being run across the board.
"Doing a minimum of defense is a necessity to be a good attacking player though."
This is called the principle of economy, which states use the bare minimum pieces required for a certain defense. If for example you are attacked on the kingside and you only need to swing one piece over it'd be silly to bring all your pieces there. Your pieces are likely to be more effective elsewhere, such as attacking their weaknesses or preventing a thematic central pawn break. The side at a disadvantage or at the very least the opponent has the initiative some concessions need to be made, make the minimum necessary concessions and no more.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
"Doing a minimum of defense is a necessity to be a good attacking player though."
This is called the principle of economy, which states use the bare minimum pieces required for a certain defense. If for example you are attacked on the kingside and you only need to swing one piece over it'd be silly to bring all your pieces there. Your pieces are likely to be more effective elsewhere, such as attacking their weaknesses or preventing a thematic central pawn break. The side at a disadvantage or at the very least the opponent has the initiative some concessions need to be made, make the minimum necessary concessions and no more.
I guess defending is pretty important then, but I would rather attack first (with the oppening I am using I can attack in 6th move already) Thats maybe the reason why I am not improving... I should practise defending more...
I think a better question to highlight what side of the coin you fall upon is to ask yourself, "do I tend to play for solid positions, or do I play for loose positions where things get very tactical?" If you like solid positions like myself, then you are probably more defensive minded, on the other hand if you prefer the latter, then you have more of a desposition toward activity which arguably is of the attacking creed.
I would say I am a crappy player.
Im very defensive but I usally don't lose
May 6, 2014
0
#14
Both it depends on the situation and the playing style of my opponent...
"The best defense is a good offense."
Counter-attacker.
May 7, 2014
0
#17
attack sod peices they don't concern me have to wait a bit as black but the same rules apply
You're all a lot of fat stupid retarded tossers....I would say I was probably an offensive player ...
Do you use every chanse you get to attack your opponent and do you attack even when you don't have a clear plan? Is offensive playing good? And what are your thoughts on this topic?