Attack or Defend?

No one has the energy to be completely objective about everything all the time.  We all pick and chose what to focus in on and take seriously.  We're all superficial at some point about something.

Not that sayings like this don't make me want to puke especially semantic ones like (ok I can't think of a good one but here goes) the strength of the heart is the heartiest strength... crap like that.

 I wish I could play a half-way decent, as you say, "crazy Tal attack"...

I believe in the attack even if it fails, at least it was given a shot. I also believe in waiting to gain the advantage before launching an attack, attack just because is not smart chess. The only way to win by playing a full on "defensive" chess is to absolutely blunt the attack and drain your opponent's clock; most players are not good enough to do this & I know I am not. So, I think it goes without saying that I consider myself an attacking player; after all, "the best defense is a good offense".

I think of attack as an operation against the enemy king.  I suppose (for example) in the KID white "attacks" or seeks play on the queen side... so maybe I think of it both ways? ... mostly as a mating operation though :)

This remind me of the semantics where people confuse positional or defensive with passive.  The only equivalent term for passive play is bad play, you'll never catch a GM with a passive style, even if they're not attacking they're actively placing pieces and pursing play at least to the extent to stay equal in the game.

First off: The "Tal" attack was just pointing to a sacrficial attack.

Secondly, the advantage must be gainsed for a succesful attack. In the KID, black will almost invariably attack white's king. This is because he has an advantage, in that area.

Finally, draining the clock is not how you win a chess game. They have to make a mistake at a point for you to gain the advantage, then you must attack.

Agreed?

Can you consolidate the parts in red?  If an attack is simply pursing your play / actively playing for something can't you do that without any mistakes being made.  E.g. in your KID example black will play on the kingisde (for an attack) and white "attack" the queenside without a need for mistakes by either player.

Good topic along with a good puzzle.

An playing actively for a goal can be an attack. You can attack without the advantage. What I am referring to there is that if you are playing defensively and your opponent makes a mistake, then you must attack. An attack without an advantage behind it though, can be repulsed. e.g In the KID, black's kingside attack can be repulsed, but so can white's. Neither attack is premature, but neither have enough advantage in that area to force a "winning" position in that area. And even if they both have enough advantage in that area for winning attack, the other attack balances the scales.

Thanks, though the puzzle was easy to make.

This is a really nice one. Not a made up one though. White wins in 4 moves.

To me, in this modern age, the definitions of attack and defence have become somewhat blurred: I mean, you can use 'active defence' (which to amounts often to a counterattack); and 'clockwork attacks' often are little more than quiet positional maneuvers, which to me is less of an 'attack' than the former. I guess the only thing that distinguishes attack from defence is the matter of initiative. Whoever has the initiative and acts first is the attacker. In that case, I guess that even the most aggressive players must take on the defensive role sometime, and vice versa - roles often switch in games...

"It is a general rule. My example is the King's Indian Defense."

Even there I can think of an exception, the Saemisch variation, in which White can often launch a kingside attack with g4, h4-h5, Bh6 etc. And I've even seen the Tal-esque Nf5!?, sacrificing the knight to open up the g-file against the king. This is with the central pawn structure remaining blocked and no undermining taking place, so even if my French example did involve breaking up the centre, this one doesn't :-)

But how come Mikhail Tal lost to Tigran Petrosian?

The best "Defense => shifting to => Counter-Attack" game I've ever played (I'm in my late 60s).

A Heroic Defense in the Sicilian Najdorf - Kids, don't try this at home! - Chess Forums - Chess.com

I'm Black.

Assessed (at the time, by chess.com's Analysis function) at 99.4% CAPS accuracy.