Sacrificial attacks are more common,but on can conduct a 'safe'attack such as a grinding -like attack too...I prefer the first one.What about you?
Great Attacking Players:
Alekhine
Smyslov
Tal
Spassky
Kasparov
Anand
Kramnik
Nakamura etc.
My favorite players are Kasparov and Anand.
I agree that attack is important. I've gotten much better with the White pieces but play for small positional advantages as Black and am trying to get myself attacking more as Black.
Fred Wilson, a rated chess master, has a book called Simple Attacking Plans, which start with four essential concepts:
1) In the opening, when justified, relentlessly attack f2 or f7.
2) Most successful Kingside attacks are directed at h2 or h7.
3) If the opponent's king is trapped in the center, do everything reasonable to control the e-file and maybe also the d-file.
4) If possible, point all your pieces at your opponent's king.
These are brutal and primitive but I love his attitude! I can't wait to work through the 173 pages of games used as examples of attacking plans.
I am a player who loves to attack.Attack has given me many great victories;and confounded losses too!What do you think of attack?Well,when studying some attacking games,I came to know that it is based on pure strategical advantages as Stenitz proved.....!Let me show you some of my attacking games.
___________________
In chess books and videos there is always talk about keeping the initiative (the attack) or losing the initiative (the attack).
When defending against a threat it is almost always better to defend INDIRECTLY rather than DIRECTLY. The reason is because INDIRECT DEFENSE KEEPS THE INITIATIVE (THE ATTACK). DIRECT DEFENSE GIVES UP THE INTIATIVE (THE ATTACK)
Ex. If your opponent is threatening to take your Q on his next move. If you threaten to mate his K on your next move. He is unlikely to capture your Q. Because you will mate him. An indirect defense of hiss threat to capture your Q, that keeps the initiative ( attack).
Petrossian strongly disagrees with you.
Can you explain in some detail.
Maybe use an interactive diagram of one of Petrosian's games illustrating a move that makes your point.
It is not secret to anyone that Petrosian was a highly defensive chess player. He would allow his opponent to have the initiative and wait for a mistake to capitalize.
That is a generality. I gave you a specific example in my post. Please give me a specific example that I can analyze.
Ok.But Petrosian Truly had some attacking talent.For proof,look at his game with Pachman...
Ok.But Petrosian Truly had some attacking talent.For proof,look at his game with Pachman...
He sacrificed his Queen(!)To trap Pachman's King.
__________________________
Thank you irahranchad for posting about an important concept in chess. The initiative (the attack) is very important to keep the initiative. The method to retain thee intiative is to defend against threats from your opponent by defending indirectly. Threatening to do something worse to your opponent than he is threatening to do to you.
At the same time you have to be calculating how to kill your opponent's counterplay. One of the best methods to kill counterplay is to exchange. Because it reduces the amount of material available for your opponent to create counterplay
!
I am a player who loves to attack.Attack has given me many great victories;and confounded losses too!What do you think of attack?Well,when studying some attacking games,I came to know that it is based on pure strategical advantages as Stenitz proved.....!Let me show you some of my attacking games.