Playing style

It seems to me that some moments in chess call for a flamboyant attacking style, whereas others call for patient, methodical defense.  Consequently, the style I prefer is neither inherently attacking nor inherently defensive, but is adaptive in character.  In an adaptive style, the emphasis is on discerning what kind of response any particular moment in a game is calling for, and then remaining faithful to whatever that happens to be.  In other words, an adaptive style is less about "I'm playing according to my preferred style," and more about letting the game itself decide how you play. 

Yes. That's the correct style of play.

Every position has a correct approach. One can't attack if the requirements for a successful attack are not present, neither should defend while having a winning position.

The key to playing chess well is not in choosing between attack or defense for its own merits, because an attack or a defense is not abstract, not universal. The key is in being able to read the position and play the correct plan according to it.

A chess game is more or less an attempt to move your pieces and pawns according to chess logic, not according to your desire to win or draw, and who fails to do so more than the opponent loses the game. If your opponent plays a move you haven't considered to be available to him, then either you or he has strayed from correct play. Hence if you attack, you are allowed to do so by the opponent, and vice versa. Or, more exactly said, you are both forced to do that according to the position, which is the common thing between both sides, and the thing that along with game rules is objective and that is your only and inevitable condition. Play that is not based on the position's features, be it attacking, defending or other, cannot succeed unless allowed by the opponent.

However, people have unique approach to playing chess, as they have different decision making algorithms - not only for the game, but in general too. Hence mistakes are inevitable, as long as the chess position is objective and the players are subjective.

And mistakes occur where your personal view of the game doesn't match the character of the position but you are forcing it upon your moves.

Having a "playing style" is therefore good for one thing - it will give you a set of candidate moves that are different from the candidate moves your opponent will consider to be available to you. One of you will overlook something somewhere. And there's where the other one will be able to take an advantage - whether successfully or not depends on the opponent's ability to find why that move is incorrect and exploit that.

Here's why having a "defensive" or "attacking" style rather than a combined one will hinder your play, by allowing your opponent to surprize you - in other words by making you blunder. If you feel you like to attack, learn to defend. If you like to defend, learn to attack. Because both are connected, and the only difference is half a move.

Thanks for posts. more comments

explain the only difference is half a move.

and also algorithms in chess?

Main Lines???

I Am Generally Attacking. With Me, It Is All Or Nothing.*cough* Kings Gambit *cough*  My Friends Know I'm Good At Changing Tempo As Black To Start An Attack. Defensive I Can Go, Just Not As Effectively. I Like To Make Them Respond, Not Respond Myself...If That Makes Sense? I Can Do Both Fairly Effectively Though, OTB Of Course...

The difference between playing White or Black (and between attacking or defending) is half a move, because either side has to take the opponent's play into account. In other words, you have to know what the opponent should play in responce to your move. If he doesn't play that, either you or he has gone wrong.

Take the following example of the difference between attacking and defending. This is an obvious and easy example. But every chess position is a more or less complicated task of applying the same approach:

Why and how did Black avoid losing immediately? He avoided it because he found White's winning offensive move, 2.Qxg7, and played a defensive move that prevented it. However, if Black hadn't seen the 2.Qxg7 candidate move, he could have gone wrong, no matter it wouldn't have been played by him.

And seeing that move means that Black, while defending, was thinking about the attacking possibilities of the position.

Not of his opponent. His opponent could have played 2.Qe7 as well, and after2...Rxe7 Black would have won. But 2.Qe7 would have been a try inherently doomed to failure, because it would have been following some personal wishes of White and not the position's requirements.

So, when playing, you have to take the best reply of the opponent into account. If you are able to meet it, then chances are you will be able to meet the rest of the opponent's moves too. And to find the best opponent's move, you have to consider the position, and to think about both sides' appropriate play. When your opponent blunders, this will be because you have found a better move for his pieces than he has. In other words, because you have "played" his attack better than him, or because you have found a better defense than the one he has suggested. Be it only in your mind.

Then how can you say "I prefer attacking" or "I prefer defending" when you have to think about both? And what could be the difference between both if not the difference between both parties' ability to understand chess logic? The fact that you are allowed to shuffle only White's pieces or only Black's, the half-move difference between both sides' actions? Yes, I think this is the difference.

Here's an article by IM Silman, where he explains most of the matters about the so-called "playing style" and how disregarding the position in favor of your personal preferences is a dangerous approach: Two Players, Two Different Fantasies

I like imbalanced positions.

Sometimes that makes me the attacker, sometimes that makes me the defender, but a good attacker is a good defender.

not neccesarily. if oponent puts a lot of attack pressure, you could blunder. good attacker isnt rly a good defender.

Thanks all

If you blunder while defending, that will be because you'll overlook the correct way for your opponent to continue the attack. Hence if you were to play the attacker's moves, you would blunder too. And vice versa - if your attack gets refuted, that means the defense you've expected isn't the optimal one, and you would have misplayed the position as a defender too.

How could we otherwise explain the usage of variations longer than one move in games' analysis, or in in-game decisionmaking? Isn't the reason for them to exist the fact that the side to move can expect the opponent's best moves, and choosing an own move is also choosing the opponent's best reply(ies)? The existence of so many possible variations in chess games is possible because people are unable to find the objectively best move in every position, for example in the initial chess position, not because such one is proven not to exist. However, in an average game position there is a limited set of reasonable moves, and they have a limited number of reasonable replies, with both being interconnected.

"A Chess game is a dialogue, a conversation between a player and his opponent. Each move by the opponent may contain threats or be a blunder, but a player cannot defend against threats or take advantage of blunders if he does not first ask himself: What is my opponent planning after each move?" (Bruce A. Moon)

If you know when you can attack an emeny king's position, you are more likely to know when your own king is safe or not - and if it's not safe you can better find ways to make it safe, because you know about the attacking oppertunities of your opponent. Blunders can happen all the time. Actually, often, I blunder in attacks when i miss one critical line which would ensure mate, but black returns to live another day (and maybe win on material). So that goes both ways.

Yes That's why both White and Black, or both the "attacker" and the "defender" can win the game - because being allowed to move the pieces of either color in any position is itself rather an obligation than an advantage. What matters is whether you are able to read the game.

I know people who don't like playing chess, buth they like watching chess games being played. Isn't that the same? It does no longer matter who will move the piece, if you've thought about the position and you've come up with the same choice. The exitement of seeing a GM at a world cup match move his knight to the same square where you wanted him to is not much more different than the one to see your opponent after a long thought go the way you know he should choose.

I believe Karpov is not as much of a "waiting" player as many, especially his opponents, would hope. One of them described him as a player who "fights you relentlessly for every square".

I agree. (Forget my previous post)

IF YOU TRY TO PLAY IN A CERTAIN STYLE RATHER THEN TRY TO FIND THE BEST MOVE, THEN YOU'LL BE LIMITING YOUR CHESS POTENTIAL.

Do you think chess is a linear game? Is there always a best move in every position which is better then the rest? I beleive chess is more complex and there are certain positions (probably not many) in which different moves, move sequences, plans are equally benefical. I can give an example I found in a strategy guide. 

I think you could safely add the starting position to the list above

Of course you are right, a lot of real-life positions have multiple good moves without any way of designating any one as 'best' (whatever that means).

And in reply to the previous poster, style isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) something you aspire to, rather it's just something you are. Style is not "I'll play this move because it fits my style", that's closer to film-acting than playing chess, and it's a recipe for disaster. Style is the way a person looks at a position, and the types of ideas they are more predisposed to see and like.

About that Professor´s quotation indicating that Capablanca was a positional player I would like to add that Capablanca was a master at openings because an opening is actually a task of "positional chess" The same Capa said once that combintions came out by themselves if the piecs were in a good position.

I am a dynamic player. Love tactical messes. Like Fischer, Kasparov, Tal.

Capablanca had the smallest number of openings out of all the champions.

It's not fair to compare Capa's openings to today's GMs, opening theory has mushroomed in the last decade mainly due to computers.