Attack vs. Defense

If you were to have 2 players of equal strength to play each other, one who was very good at attacking, tactics, and sound sacrifice, and another who was good at defending, holding on to advantages, strategy, and getting into winning endgames, who do you think would win?

For those of you who have no idea of what I'm talking about, I'm just saying who would win a game between a very good attacking player and a very good defending player.

I do not think I am qualified to answer that question at my level, but in real life, often the attacker is at the disadvantage and usually soaks up heavy loses even when he wins. so in my way have reasoning  a great defence in chess is my choice over open out attack, attack attack!  But the art of superb defence is not easy to learn. Good question though

Steinitz was world champion for over 20 years in an era when he was the only great defender and dozens of guys were great attackers.

I am intrigued that two people so far have leaned toward defense as superior, because I usually hear the opposite: that an attack often breaks down and defeats the defending player.

With world class players the strategist would win, but your average class player game would be a win for the attacker usually. Though that is a generalization.

Very good attacking player versus very good defending player? There is no answer. Because you cannot quantify the attacking strength or the defending strength.

Kasparov is a very good attacking player, and I am a very good defending player. Of course Kasparov will beat me anytime.

My friend is a very good attacking player, and I am a very good defending player. And I beat my friend most of the time.

BTW, you are talking about SOUND attack. Sound attacks only exist in high level games. But even among GMs, an attack doesn't have to be 100% sound. You have to take into account many considerations, such as whether your opponent is a weak defender or not, whether your opponent have enough time or not. If you play only for the theoretical sound moves (at high level) you will get a draw most of the time.

And SOUND attack vs SOUND defend = DRAW. So you have to measure accurately the attacking strength and the defending strength to know the answer to your question.

Many players are weak at defending. There is psychology issue here. Even only an unsound sacrifice may stop a heart beat. It is beneficial to understand this, and to understand your opponent.

For example, I know that I am a better defender than attacker. That's why I will anytime take the defending position in a Sicilian Smith-Morra game.

Here are games between an attacking player (you can see from the way he played) and me, which positioned myself as a defender. I felt that his sacrifices were not sound enough to crack my defending skill. I tried not to be greedy, but to take material advantage only when I thought I could handle the attack. When playing the game, I was amazed how my opponent could "see/predict" the attacking chances. It is something I cannot do. But many of my opponent or spectators during OTB games have expressed their salutation for my defending skill

Agree. There are 3 aspects that I use to develop my defending skill.

(1) Knowing the defending themes and patterns, fortresses, stalemates. I try to achieve this from studying grandmaster games.

(2) Knowing how to attack (improving the attacking skill), because one important criteria for a successful defense is to keep looking for counter-attack possibilities. I try to achieve this by playing the King's Gambit because in KG White is forced to attack and create complications (or otherwise loose). This also improve one's comfort playing sharp positions.

(3) Knowing about winning/losing endgame, because when you defend you have to continuously look for possibilities to exchange pieces and to give back the material advantage, but the positions you are after are those of winning endgame positions. I try to achieve this by playing the Caro-Kann.

I believe it would be a draw.

I also believe, It is wiser to play it safe rather then taking a risk!

At chessgames.com in classical games, Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian beat Mikhail Tal 5 to 4, with 37 draws.

You don't believe Tal was a trickster and not a good chess player?

I respectfully disagree, If one player is an attacker, and the other defence, it would not likely end in a draw, often as like two players that are both very strong denfensive, more likely to end in a draw? They more then likely tie up the position.

attacking is easier, but since you added strategy to defensiveness, defender will win

At high levels the defender would win more often. You'd often have an nearly even end game, and the question stipulated the defender was better at endgames.

At lower levels, the attacker would win more often. Such a game would generally have the attacker attacking and the defender defending. A mistake when attacking means an attack fissles and sometimes material is lost. A mistake when defending means the attack succeeds - material is always lost or checkmate. The consequences of a mistake while playing defense are much higher.

I agree with your comment AOracle, When I play a stronger player they're attack is relentless, so I feel I must attack as well for good or worst, better then sitting back and waiting for your defence to crumble . At least you fought back!