I think everyone says 'attack' because it is easier to identify and understand. A good defense is only noticable when someone is being attacked.
Attack vs Defense
Sort:
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.
On the other hand,persistent,tenacious defense has a highly demoralizing effect on the attacker..
Apotek wrote:
On the other hand,persistent,tenacious defense has a highly demoralizing effect on the attacker..
Indeed.
Anyone have good examples of this?
Jul 18, 2015
0
#27
kleelof wrote:
Apotek wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Jul 18, 2015
0
#31
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.
Jul 18, 2015
0
#32
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.
Jul 18, 2015
0
#33
Justs99171 wrote:
pfren wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
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.
The results invariably favor the one who makes the fewer mistakes.
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!
Justs99171 wrote:
pfren wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
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.
The results invariably favor the one who makes the fewer mistakes.
which is usually the attacker!
Your agruement has already been defeated by your own words. Notice your below previous comment.
Justs99171 wrote:
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.
If there have always been more attackers than defenders in chess through out the centuries. Than the attackers will always have higher stats than the defenders.
Which would mean the comparison between the attackers and defenders would be an incorrect comparison.
Which in turn will make all the stats of the attackers winning completely useless.
For example:
If I was to say 5 attackers won there game and only 3 defenders won there game. Than you would think the attackers are better since they won 2 more games than the defenders.
However, if I was say the pool of attackers started off with 100 attackers and out of the 100 attackers only 5 of them won.
Than if I was to say the pool of defenders started off with 3 defenders and all 3 defenders won.
You will see the attackers only had a 5% success rate when the defenders had a 100% success rate.
Which means if the pools were even with 100 attackers and 100 defenders
Only 5 attackers would win and all 100 defenders would win making the defenders better.
Which is why the above stats you are talking about are completely rubbish.
Lastly, In chess attacking and defense can sometimes be done simultaneously. So saying all the attackers were attacking might not be true. They could have been defending or vice versa.
Like the art of war.
Fighting with out fighting.
Attacking with out attacking.
Defending with out defending.
Jul 19, 2015
0
#36
Attack, in the sense that you seem to be putting it in should be initated by one player. Defense is crucial to defend against attack...
Justs99171 wrote:
Once again, you prove to be incredibly stupid. I was at no point comparing the success of attackers vs defenders in that statement.
I was simply making reference to the irrefutable fact that attacking strategy is older and more developed than defensive strategy, that the game of chess by modern rules was in existence centuries before defensive strategy even began to be developed.
Comparing attackers success rates vs defensive players isn't necessary. Go open any opening explorer and you see that white has a higher success rate than black and this can easily be attributed to the use of an extra move to attack. White attacks - black defends - and white wins a higher percentage of games. You can name any attacking player in history and that player also had to defend with black. Most games that black actually did win, black was for some reason attacking or counter attacking; and quite often because white was too passive or blundered, and not because of a botched attack.
We all both attack and defend, and we're usually attacking becaue we're winning and winning because we are attacking!
That is exactly right you wasn't comparing them. I was comparing them.
The reason I was comparing them was to prove the attacking stats you are using should not be considered relevant.
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
Once again, you prove to be incredibly stupid. I was at no point comparing the success of attackers vs defenders in that statement.
I was simply making reference to the irrefutable fact that attacking strategy is older and more developed than defensive strategy, that the game of chess by modern rules was in existence centuries before defensive strategy even began to be developed.
Comparing attackers success rates vs defensive players isn't necessary. Go open any opening explorer and you see that white has a higher success rate than black and this can easily be attributed to the use of an extra move to attack. White attacks - black defends - and white wins a higher percentage of games. You can name any attacking player in history and that player also had to defend with black. Most games that black actually did win, black was for some reason attacking or counter attacking; and quite often because white was too passive or blundered, and not because of a botched attack.
We all both attack and defend, and we're usually attacking becaue we're winning and winning because we are attacking!
That is exactly right you wasn't comparing them. I was comparing them.
The reason I was comparing them was to prove the attacking stats you are using should not be considered relevant.
Please don't start a flame war...
Jul 21, 2015
0
#40
Gm_andrewfeng wrote:
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
Once again, you prove to be incredibly stupid. I was at no point comparing the success of attackers vs defenders in that statement.
I was simply making reference to the irrefutable fact that attacking strategy is older and more developed than defensive strategy, that the game of chess by modern rules was in existence centuries before defensive strategy even began to be developed.
Comparing attackers success rates vs defensive players isn't necessary. Go open any opening explorer and you see that white has a higher success rate than black and this can easily be attributed to the use of an extra move to attack. White attacks - black defends - and white wins a higher percentage of games. You can name any attacking player in history and that player also had to defend with black. Most games that black actually did win, black was for some reason attacking or counter attacking; and quite often because white was too passive or blundered, and not because of a botched attack.
We all both attack and defend, and we're usually attacking becaue we're winning and winning because we are attacking!
That is exactly right you wasn't comparing them. I was comparing them.
The reason I was comparing them was to prove the attacking stats you are using should not be considered relevant.
Please don't start a flame war...
We are discussing about attack and defense that's why don't start fighting.
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...