Attackers advantage

Hi everyone, I was playing a game in FICS 15m, it was going a quite boring game in the ruy lopez exchange, o mix it up first I gave a pawn at move 10 with no compesation at all... Then at move 16 I just go and sac a B for 3 pawns, and Im playing what should be a lost position, but on the attack, and as it happens so many times my opponent blundered, any idea on why attackers seems to always get an advantage even giving away material for no good reason?
This was not the only game that this happened to me, it just was the most recent sample I had here, Im asking because I also know of a 2100/2200 player that in every single game seems to simply give away a free pawn in the opening with no compensation, but then he complicates the game in a way that the pawns simply get useless and eventually he manages to get an attack going on and 2100+ wins lots of games to keep it that way So why is it that if we offer material and get on the attack our opponents tend to blunder more? And how to avoid it? I always get too defensive when Iam material up ending up loosing it

Players make more mistakes under pressure.

mmm that does not make much sense, if we are playing and for some strategical reason we win a piece or pawns, we keep on playing the same way we did before, but if an opponent sac a N even if on some bad pawn, we tremble a lil bit more

depends if you win a pawn 'cold' and your opponent has no compensation (ie. you keep control), or if he has some initiative against the pawn.

thats why i love the smith-morra gambit. You lose a pawn in return for good development and u can eventually strangle black for breathing space for his bishops.

Sometimes you lose a game just since you have a small advantage and you want to lock the game to keep that advantage. It is easier to attack a position than trying to completely lock it. I might be wrong but I often play better when taking risks than while being inhibited and defensive.

It makes perfect sense if you've played  a bit of chess and understand some human nature.

You have the same pressure if you become material up by winning it strategically or by your opponent blundering it

The defender is under more pressure than the attacker, usually.

 I agree. I would go further and say that a defender often does not have any threats. If they do I would say that the 'defender' has more of a counter attacking role. So if the defender does not have any threats, then most of the time, the worst an attacker could do would be not keep the most amount of pressure on the defender in question. That being said, it can take a defender a long time to get an advantage in a game.

I used to see myself as more of a defender. Now I think of myself as more positional and look for threats from both sides. ... Counter play, or trying to stop it is very important. (At least that is how I see it :-} )

Giving up the pawn for no compt was defintely a mistake. White should have consolidated and castled asap. Then it was a grind all the way. However your B sac was really exciting. Despite being a piece up whites K was stuck in the centre. In a 15 min game and your under attack like that it's easier to blunder. Fact is, at least in fast time controls , being a piece down isn't always that important. In fact on ICC Larry Christianson says a piece down means nothing in a blitz game as the initiate in attack doesn't allow your opponent to calculate all the threats.

I know a 2200 FIDE player who nearly always gives up a pawn, sometime 2, in almost every game. He prefers room for his pieces. Truth is IT'S EASIER TO ATTACK THAN DEFEND.

Oh my, I think i forgot to say I thought it was a great game in my last post, heh

Excuse me, but I seem to recall that the hardest thing to do in chess is to win a won game.  It's the tendency of the player who is ahead to relax and "let the game win itself."  The player down in material invests more energy in the game, normally sees more opportunities, and viola--a win.  To me, there is no difference of pressure in attacking or in defending.  It's like dancing--one leads, one follows, but both react to the music.  Dancing well enough to make a woman's heart melt--now, that's pressure!

I might also add that the art of defense is extremely difficult. I just had two games where my opponent played the Smith-Morra. I won both. But the chaos is nuts. Here's the more "awesome" game. We obviously both made mistakes ( I was cursing myself for getting into a position where I felt every move counted, and I was really nervous). The key is to be aware of what the real target is. Good attackers will both attack the king and positional weaknesses. My opponent tried to do both (attack g7/ the king and d6). A lot of players might either crumble under the pressure, not consolidate, or not manage both attacks. Just FYI, the instant I played d4 with the INTENT of playing Nxe5, I realized I should have just played Nxe5. This is another very difficult thing- when to wait, when to counterattack? Hard to tell in-game.

Wow, does FICS still exist?