Forums

Offense vs. Defense

Sort:
DLB99

As a rule which would consider yourself? An offensive player that favors bold attacks, a defensive player that likes to build fortresses and lay traps, or somewhere in-between?

It's a given of course that any good player has to be able to do both as the situation warrants but each player has their own style and has a tendency to favor one over the other.

Personally I rather tend to be a defensive player. I expect that's partly due to my own natural tendency to wait and react in competitive games. I generally prefer to try to wait for my opponent to make a mistake I can capitalize on. While this tends to work well for me at my rating I realize that kind of thinking will never get me into the higher ranks where the errors are fewer and fewer.

I'm just curious how others see themselves on this issue.

DLB99

 Well I don't think any reasonable player would argue that you should be completely one way or the other, either ALL defense, or ALL offense. But it's a natural thing to find yourself trending towards one side or the other. Just asking what you, as a player find yourself doing most often.

SerbianPlayer

Well i attack the weaker/okay players and i defend against the strong players because eventually we will just trade pieces to an endgame vs a strong player unless i blunder, and that might lead to trouble for the strong player.

Personally i like both, when i see an attack i will  attack but mostly i will stay defensive till i see if he/she did something wrong.

Fonix
AnthonyCG wrote:
'In chess only the attacker wins.' If you're passive you'll lose even won positions. Thres a time and place for everything.

 hmmm. Yeah I think I know what you are trying to say but it could be interpreted incorrectly. Yes you must "attack" to checkmate, but if you are talking about ones style of play, then no. Certainly you can win a game via defensive positional play. See Aron Nimzowitsch for examples. 

DLB99
SerbianPlayer wrote:

Well i attack the weaker/okay players and i defend against the strong players because eventually we will just trade pieces to an endgame vs a strong player unless i blunder, and that might lead to trouble for the strong player.

Personally i like both, when i see an attack i will  attack but mostly i will stay defensive till i see if he/she did something wrong.


 Very interesting, I actually find myself doing the exact opposite. As I'm more defensive against weaker players, and more eager to trade pieces against stronger players. My reasoning there is that against weaker players patience in waiting for the inevitable blunder is far more likely to pay dividends than it would be against stronger players. Whereas if I feel that a player is better than myself I'll be more than happy to take a draw rather than risk everything going after a mate. A cowardly attitude perhaps, but I've never been much of a gambler.

moopster

I play offense in tournaments (where draws are a bad thing) but defense in matches (where draws are a good thing!)

TomR

In a live chess match I recently played I did both, I was down a piece due to a bit of a mistake on my part and a few good moves on my opponents part, so I played defence. But after playing defence for a while I found a way to turn the tables on my opponent and rapidly took a heap of pieces and when I got mate my opponent only had a rook and a bishop and I was only missing both of my knights. You just need to know the right time to play either one.

I tend to personally favour more defence

NesimTR

Draws are never a good thing...in matches they just aren't a bad thing? But yeah, I tend to wait for my opponent to come at me unless it's a position where I obviously need to attack in order to convert my advantage into a win. You can only play rook v. rook with a couple pawn advantage so many times before you get bored.

TomR

lol, your right about the rook exchanges

Golbat

As White, I play on Offense.

As Black, I play on Defense.

Kernicterus

If I used tactical trainer that day, I tend to play more aggressively.  If I didn't...much less so.

Moneybagsmonkey8897
DLB99 wrote:

As a rule which would consider yourself? An offensive player that favors bold attacks, a defensive player that likes to build fortresses and lay traps, or somewhere in-between?

It's a given of course that any good player has to be able to do both as the situation warrants but each player has their own style and has a tendency to favor one over the other.

Personally I rather tend to be a defensive player. I expect that's partly due to my own natural tendency to wait and react in competitive games. I generally prefer to try to wait for my opponent to make a mistake I can capitalize on. While this tends to work well for me at my rating I realize that kind of thinking will never get me into the higher ranks where the errors are fewer and fewer.

I'm just curious how others see themselves on this issue.


 I agree i am a defensive player too. My way of playing is wait for the right moment to spring the trap.