Attack vs Defense

pfren, I would have to say that considering the human element, the results favor the attacker. Chess between one human and another human is no longer scientific. Psychologically, it is an advantage to be attacking.

I've also noticed that counter attacks are more successful than initial attacks.

But attack is defense also...it's necessary to both attack and defend in a chess game, and there's no way around this

Yup... 

 

I think everyone says 'attack' because it is easier to identify and understand. A good defense is only noticable when someone is being attacked.

True.

The best defense, is a counterattack if you have one imo. So what's better, attack or defense? I guess it also really depends on the circumstances, like if it was blitz/bullet/rapid or smth in that type, I would def recommend to be on the attacking side.

Lasker was the first great defender, but Nimzo really developed defensive strategy a lot. So you had how many years? Decades? or even centuries of attacking chess development before anyone seriously started to develop defensive concepts ... You did have Philidor and Stenitz but chess under modern rules began in the 1490s and we had maybe the greatest defensive player ever become world champion in 1963. Now think of all the great attacking players that preceded Petrosian! Also, this style was never very popular! I would have to agree with the previous poster that people don't understand defensive chess as well as attacking. Anyway, the stress and pressure of being attacked expends and fatigues you more than doing the attacking. Also, if you make a mistake while defending, it's probably a loss. If you botch a good attack, it's probably a draw.

I think you can make a slight inaccuracy while attacking and still win. I think if you make a slight inaccuracy while defending, you're dead.

On the other hand,persistent,tenacious defense has a highly demoralizing effect on the attacker..

Indeed.

Anyone have good examples of this?

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1069975

Great game chessman and a good example!Tigran showed his teeth to the then young generation!

The results invariably favor the one who makes the fewer mistakes.

The results invariably favor the one who makes the fewer mistakes.

Which of course tells us nothing.

My impression is attacking comes first and defending second in the history of chess and in the development of individual players.

During the Romantic era the results favored attackers, then as the Classical era dawned, defensive technique caught up, and the wild attacking styles were beaten back.

Since then it's been an arms race between attack and defense. When a bold attacker breaks out like Tal in his meteoric rise to the World Championship, defensive technique improved and Tal was neutralized.

And when a genius defensive player like Petrosian emerged, the attacker Spassky worked out the formula to press and control Petrosian but not overreach.

For class players I'd say it's definitely an advantage to attack rather than defend. Maybe it's psychological, maybe it's easier to see the patterns for attack than defense. Gambits work better for class players than titled players.

ipcress12 wrote:

Which of course tells me nothing.

Here... I fixed your typo.

PS: Did not care to read the rest, because I am sure it would tell me nothing.

pfren -- IMO you are the poster child here for rude titled players who can't make a substantial argument outside analysis on a chess board.

Ah, at least you have realized this is a chess forum... that's a good start!

It depends on which one is performed better. A stronger attack can destroy any defense at its path, as a stronger defense can block any attack. If both are equal then the game will most likely be a draw. But both are just fundamentals of chess, as you CANT win a game using only defense, neither draw or not lose a game using only attack. One must coexist with each other, like a Yin Yang.

I prefer to think of it in terms of dynamic active play vs more strategically motivated play. An easy example can be seen from openings. If you play the king's gambit, chances are you would prefer a position with hair-raising complications over one in which you can grind down your opponent in a technical endgame. Similarly, if you play mainline Caro-Kann (from either side, really), while there are positions that arise in which active piece play leads to rich tactical possibilities, chances are you want to gain small advantages and ride them to a powerful endgame. I think attack vs defense is a little shallow. My characterization is also shallow, but slightly less so! One cannot characterize each move in a chess game on the attack-defense scale, nor can one do it for the strategy vs dynamics scale. Sometimes, dynamic play can lead to long-term advantages, and long-term advantages can empower dynamic possibilities, especially if one has centered one's game on a freeing pawn-break that immediately activates a key piece. One can also sacrifice for "purely positional" (another imprecise term) compensation.

Bottom line: Chess is complex.

which is usually the attacker!

I'm not sure if that's true. The attacker, depending on the position, may have much more leeway in the error-department. For the defender, one mistake could be fatal. That's why it's harder to defend than to attack. The attacker may win, but chances are the defender made less mistakes, paradoxically!