Do I play too passively?

I recall being accused more than once of being a passive chess player. Looking at my past games, I don't find that entirely true. 

However, I need other peoples opinions - both educated and speculative - to truly find out. 

What do you think?

Watching a couple of your last games maybe it's because of your positional opening 

repertoire.

Also you           have a tendency to trade queens a lot and go into endgames, 

some players call positional and endgame chess passive.

Nothing wrong with it though! Just because other players 

expect fireworks in every chess game doesnt mean it's got too happen.

yes, too passive.

So I'm getting mixed opinions.

I really hope people don't find me THAT passive.

Anyone else?

Having just looked through the game which you posted in this thread, I had to laugh - hardly what I'd call passive play, good game!

Have you taken up the Sicilian again in order to force yourself to play more aggressively? The plan seems to be working!

Not being passive just gives you great chances for winning games more easily, and quicker.

And btw, positonal play doesn't mean at all being passive.

Nope.

I'd say your style is humorous.

In your game against Sparta37, you missed 19 QxQ, but tricked your opponent into repeating the position.

Well, Vulpes_Vulpes I'd like you to compare your OP to this one, written by an Aggressive Player --

I play aggressively, too aggressively, and I really don't give a damn if you don't like it. Do you think there's such a thing as too aggressive a style in chess? YOU DO? Well BOOHOOHOO, deal with it. Let's fight. Let's get drunk and fight.  Your haircut sucks. 

Sincerely, Garry Kasparov. 

------

See the difference? 

bouncing_check wrote:

Having just looked through the game which you posted in this thread, I had to laugh - hardly what I'd call passive play, good game!

Have you taken up the Sicilian again in order to force yourself to play more aggressively? The plan seems to be working!

No, actually. I took up sicilian because I need to expand my opening repertoire, but thanks.

Glass-Spider wrote:

I'd say your style is humorous.

In your game against Sparta37, you missed 19 QxQ, but tricked your opponent into repeating the position.

I know. I didn't see it the first time, but for some reason, he repeated the position. I then saw the tactics, finished game, then had a good laugh.

Here's your most recent loss at slow time control... 

So, looking at just this one game. Yes, you do seem a bit passive -- but I think the real issue is that you need to learn more "positional" chess. I think your lack of sophistication in positional chess leads to bad tactical situations and a lack of attacking chances for you. But that's just from looking at one game. 

@JG27Pyth - Two passive moves out of an entire game shouldn't determine playing style. I can understand playing 17. Bc4. White would need to drop a pawn with a4 to counter black's ...b5, trapping the bishop.

JG27Pyth wrote:

Here's your most recent loss at slow time control... 

So, looking at just this one game. Yes, you do seem a bit passive -- but I think the real issue is that you need to learn more "positional" chess. I think your lack of sophistication in positional chess leads to bad tactical situations and a lack of attacking chances for you. But that's just from looking at one game. 

LOOK at my live games. I played much better most of the time

You make a good point about 17.Bc4 dropping a pawn. It's definitely worth looking into. In a correspondence game like this you'd want to spend some quality time with the analysis board there... I'm confident Rad1 remains the best move. Initiative matters! It's an intersting postion there. After Rad1 White has interesting attacking possibilities on the kingside... there are some interesting squares available, or almost available, to the white rooks -- Rf4 has possibilities, planting a rook on d6 is another. Is dropping the a-pawn going to matter at all? I don't see this as the kind of middlegame that comes down to that a-pawn. 

The passive judgement was not just based on two moves, but the whole first 1/2. Even the opening (Birds) kind of guarantees that your opponent will have the initiative. But if you want to insist I'm being unfair you are probably right. Vulpes was giving up a lot of rating points in that game, and playing higher rated players (*edit -- I'm not talking about being intimidated by a rating, it's really not about rating per se, I'm talking about being outplayed*)  can make anyone play passively. I've been there. 7 moves into the game and you can't find anything to do! There's nothing to attack. And your opponent keeps exposing new problems in your position. All you can do is react to your opponent's threats. It feels so futile... you haven't lost material, to an outside observer it might even look like a good game, but you know you are just a crashtest dummy on a ride.  

@Vulpes -- LOOK at my live games. I played much better most of the time

Put up a game you wonder about -- I mean if you're asking if you might play too passively... put up a specific game or even some specific moves that make you wonder-- "was my play passive here?

You're right that dropping the a-pawn likely wouldn't matter, but i was looking at the potential for a trap to be sprung. I think the thought process at that moment might've been "I see a trap, so i should get the bishop out of there" instead of analysing the lines, finding a4, and thinking about material vs. initiative.

17. Rad1 b5 18. a4 bxa4 19. Rd3 Qb6 20. Bc4 Rad8

Dunno, I've "seen" you around but never played you. Want to play online chess?

Well, I had a long look at it with and without a chess engine. Without engine help I found some crazy attacking things by attacking on the d file and kingside while letting the bishop on a6 be trapped and captured... the engine, sadly, refuted my brilliancies. The engine at least agrees that Rad1 is correct (phew!) but it doesn't like sacing the a-pawn at all. It likes Ba5 (preventing the Queen coming to b6) ... a manuever I had considered but decided I liked the pawn sac better. Actually, truth be told I liked my unsound Bishop sac. I probably would have lost this game! LOL. (But not everybody finds the refutation.)   

Nothing wrong with passive, its not my style but thats just me.

There's a game on Youtube in one of Yasser Seirawans lectures where he played Mikhail Tal one of the most agressive players of his era. Seirawans plan was to play a closed opening & exchange minor pieces early to frustrate Tal, reduce his firepower & eventually bore him to death.

It Worked!!

@JG27Pyth - I don't use an engine so there are possible holes in my line. I looked at Ba5 and thought it could be refuted by ...Be8, and the black queen will eventually get to b6.