"... we can see from the above that players who are happy as White to play for a small edge in a queenless middlegame have a number of lines where they can achieve the sort of position they want. Even in other variations, the willingness to settle for a near-equal endgame, rather than trying to obtain an objective opening advantage, makes one's whole job of opening repertoire management very much easier. ... With his superb intuition and depth of positional understanding, [Petrosian] was accustomed to treating the opening relatively flippantly, and did not normally strive very hard to gain a theoretical advantage. ... it seems to me that for many players below master level, having a repertoire where there is minimal need to prepare could in fact be quite attractive. It must be remembered that, despite its shortcomings, Petrosian's approach proved good enough to wrest the world title out of the hands of Botvinnik, one of the best-prepared players ever. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2003)
"... Play sharp openings, like gambits, to learn tactics. If you are not good at tactics, that is all the more reason to do so! ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627023735/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman15.pdf
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are on closed complicated positions, I find at least for myself that I really don't attack much when playing and usually just close the position and make the game complicated until my opponent makes a mistake, most of my games come down to pawns at the end to decide the win . usually when I try playing attacking chess from the start of the game I end up blundering badly.