offense/defense?
Sort:
So, I know there are attacking type players, but is there such a thing as defensive players? If so, who would be considered defensive?
I dont care for labels, but check out Petrosians games.
Viktor Korchnoi and Anatoly Karpov were also good defenders.
I believe that was Aron Nimzowitch. Tarrasch and co kept jesting towards him for that particular concept
0
#6
1. What defense is in the beginning
2. What defense is at higher levels
3. What defense is not
1.
If you don't have a forced way to win right away, then your #1, biggest, first (etc) priority is finding what your opponent has threatened. No matter the kinds of tempting attacking moves you may have, almost always when your opponent has a threat, you need to defend against it right away. Doing so will make your future threats stronger. Think of it like throwing a punch from a solid stance, it's going to hit harder. If you're threatening a queen, and they threaten a pawn, sure, win the queen. But if their threat is equal or greater than your own, almost always the best move is to defend against the threat.
Even the most wild attacking GMs will play this way. Basically this simply means to not lose material to direct threats.
---
2.
When a strong player is noted as a good defender, it's different.
So if they're not defending against an immediate threat, what are they defending against? In high level games, generally each side has its trumps. They're advantages that are intrinsic to the position itself and can be long lasting. For example space and pawn structure. It's generally impossible to make theses things disappear with perfect defense. What a good defender can do is either diminish the value of the advantage, or force the opponent to exchange it for an advantage that's worth less. Often this involves balancing direct defense and a counter attack of some kind.
Sometimes this involves deep calculation, other times it's more conceptual... if we're talking about a high level game it's probably going to be a mix of both. Petrosian was noted for seeing the potential trumps in his opponent's position before his opponents were even aware the possibility existed. And really, all top GMs are exceptional defenders.
---
3.
Ok, back to lower levels. As Diakonia has said here (and many times before) the labels less experienced players use e.g. "I'm an attacker" or "I'm a defender" are usually code for "I'm careless." For example a self described "attacker" probably means this player never checks for his opponent's threats to begin with, and just hopes his threats carry the day eventually. The "defender" hopes his opponent runs out of threats, never checking whether he himself has a knockout blow. Neither of these are a style so much as they're describing a player who habitually fails to do basic analysis.
No one is referred to as defensive players. In chess people call them positional.
0110001101101000 wrote:
1. What defense is in the beginning
2. What defense is at higher levels
3. What defense is not
1.
If you don't have a forced way to win right away, then your #1, biggest, first (etc) priority is finding what your opponent has threatened. No matter the kinds of tempting attacking moves you may have, almost always when your opponent has a threat, you need to defend against it right away. Doing so will make your future threats stronger. Think of it like throwing a punch from a solid stance, it's going to hit harder. If you're threatening a queen, and they threaten a pawn, sure, win the queen. But if their threat is equal or greater than your own, almost always the best move is to defend against the threat.
Even the most wild attacking GMs will play this way. Basically this simply means to not lose material to direct threats.
---
2.
When a strong player is noted as a good defender, it's different.
So if they're not defending against an immediate threat, what are they defending against? In high level games, generally each side has its trumps. They're advantages that are intrinsic to the position itself and can be long lasting. For example space and pawn structure. It's generally impossible to make theses things disappear with perfect defense. What a good defender can do is either diminish the value of the advantage, or force the opponent to exchange it for an advantage that's worth less. Often this involves balancing direct defense and a counter attack of some kind.
Sometimes this involves deep calculation, other times it's more conceptual... if we're talking about a high level game it's probably going to be a mix of both. Petrosian was noted for seeing the potential trumps in his opponent's position before his opponents were even aware the possibility existed. And really, all top GMs are exceptional defenders.
---
3.
Ok, back to lower levels. As Diakonia has said here (and many times before) the labels less experienced players use e.g. "I'm an attacker" or "I'm a defender" are usually code for "I'm careless." For example a self described "attacker" probably means this player never checks for his opponent's threats to begin with, and just hopes his threats carry the day eventually. The "defender" hopes his opponent runs out of threats, never checking whether he himself has a knockout blow. Neither of these are a style so much as they're describing a player who habitually fails to do basic analysis.
I had a student that was convinced he was "agressive" and "tactical"
You know what his defintion of "agressive/tactical" was? Every game he would give up a bishop or knight to take the f2/f7 pawn. Someone at some point told him that is how agressive players play.
agisdon wrote:
No one is referred to as defensive players. In chess people call them positional.
Good answer. I dont think people play thinking 'alright lets sit down and defend whatever this guy throws at me'. As mentioned they look at positional factors, try to eliminate their opponoents attacking chances, and make their opponents pieces ineffective by being misplaced and/or uncoordinated. Generally everyone has to defend at some point during a game as its hard to make threats that have to be dealt with every move. Doesnt mean your not keeping the pressure on though.
Look at Karpovs games. He was great at shutting things down positionally while posing threats for his ooponents.
Thanks for all the detailed answers!
0
#11
The style is often called "solid" too. Petrosian, Karpov and Nimzowitsch are probably the most well known "defenders" My Chessmaster program labels people like Leko and Ivunchuk as "defensive" too, although I don't know much about them.
The style is often thought of as dull and less attractive than an aggressive player like Tal or Kasparov but playing a "solid" game can have you snickering quietly to yourself at your opponents frustration!
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.