Please help I am bad
how do I attack in chess?
Sort:
ok well someone else then
Oct 22, 2020
0
#4
Get your self into positions from which attacks are possible. Develop pieces quickly, to good squares, and tuck your king away somewhere safe.
Then learn when you can effectively attack and when you can't.
when should I attack, I always feel like I'll just end up trading
Oct 22, 2020
0
#6
Attacking and playing gambits are two different things. Attacking ideas are sometimes different, and you need lots of experience. Sometimes a person might use a new attacking method on you, and you should identify those.
Example: I didn't know that pawn storming was a viable idea (i thought it was too slow) until the 1500s used it and crushed me repeatedly.
SNUDOO wrote:
Attacking and playing gambits are two different things. Attacking ideas are sometimes different, and you need lots of experience. Sometimes a person might use a new attacking method on you, and you should identify those.
Example: I didn't know that pawn storming was a viable idea (i thought it was too slow) until the 1500s used it and crushed me repeatedly.
Well yeah and that's my problem. I can almost never get an attack going unless I did a gambit or a specifically aggressive opening.
And I feel like because of that, my rating just keeps staying around the same just going up and down, depending on who blunders first.
Oct 22, 2020
0
#9
well you should get "the art of attack in chess" by [russian guy I can't remember]
ah yes the famous russian guy you can't remember.
Oct 22, 2020
0
#11
Vukovic.
The original was full of errors by the way.
It has a nice section on the greek gift.
Oct 22, 2020
0
#12
Good book (it's by Vladimir Vukovic, who was Croatian, not Russian), but a bit technical and a bit advanced. For a more introductory book, Fred Wilson's "Simple Attacking Plans" is pretty good. Also really helpful is Chernev's "Logical Chess, Move by Move."
Oct 22, 2020
0
#13
Frankly, your rating is too low. You don't even know what you're asking 
You don't want the winner to be the one who doesn't blunder, but you're asking too much too soon.
Although, sure, it's never bad to learn about what a good attack is about. As the attacker you want open lines to the enemy king (lines are files, ranks, and diagonals... open lines are those things but without pawn on them). You also want to trade away important defenders. For example if you trade off a knight on f6, then the squares it was guarding (like h7) are more vulnerable. Focusing on certain points (like h7) is what Vukovic calls "focal points" in his seminal work.
Oct 22, 2020
0
#15
tlay80 wrote:
llama wrote:
Kotov.
Nope! Though I've confused the two of them too...
Hmm, how did you confuse them?
I only did it because I'm supremely sleep deprived and drunk lol.
But I'm glad you corrected me... and I edited my post.
Oct 22, 2020
0
#16
llama wrote:
tlay80 wrote:
llama wrote:
Kotov.
Nope! Though I've confused the two of them too...
Hmm, how did you confuse them?
Authors of classic books from around the same era with names in languages that aren't really very close, except to a dumb monoglot like me.
llama wrote:
Frankly, your rating is too low. You don't even know what you're asking
You don't want the winner to be the one who doesn't blunder, but you're asking too much too soon.
Although, sure, it's never bad to learn about what a good attack is about. As the attacker you want open lines to the enemy king (lines are files, ranks, and diagonals... open lines are those things but without pawn on them). You also want to trade away important defenders. For example if you trade off a knight on f6, then the squares it was guarding (like h7) are more vulnerable. Focusing on certain points (like h7) is what Vukovic calls "focal points" in his seminal work.
Ok sry lmao
Oct 22, 2020
0
#18
tlay80 wrote:
llama wrote:
tlay80 wrote:
llama wrote:
Kotov.
Nope! Though I've confused the two of them too...
Hmm, how did you confuse them?
Authors of classic books from around the same era with names in languages that aren't really very close, except to a dumb monoglot like me.
Hah, that actually makes sense. My apologies.
Oct 22, 2020
0
#19
CantFindaUsername123 wrote:
llama wrote:
Frankly, your rating is too low. You don't even know what you're asking
You don't want the winner to be the one who doesn't blunder, but you're asking too much too soon.
Although, sure, it's never bad to learn about what a good attack is about. As the attacker you want open lines to the enemy king (lines are files, ranks, and diagonals... open lines are those things but without pawn on them). You also want to trade away important defenders. For example if you trade off a knight on f6, then the squares it was guarding (like h7) are more vulnerable. Focusing on certain points (like h7) is what Vukovic calls "focal points" in his seminal work.
Ok sry lmao
Don't apologize. That's just how it is. I'm trying to tell you the truth without substituting falsehoods for the sake of politeness.
The first big hurdle of chess is something only idiots will excel at... which is part of why kids improve so quickly (kids are idiots so they have no problem going through this). Adults on the other hand, adults are intelligent (at least more so than the 2000 rated 12 year olds) and they find essential chess skills too boring... skills like blunder checking.
The first stage is building good habits... habits like you'll find in the book I recommended where Heisman talks about what he calls "hope chess."
Like I can play gambits and all that stuff, but like how do I attack in general. I feel like I'm not really getting better at chess, because all that really happens is we end up trading down all our pieces and it's just a competition of who can blunder last. I want to learn how I can make attacking ideas.