Should you attack a piece even though it's obvious it can run away?

I imagine you would attack a piece even though it could run away because your thinking to yourself that if your piece, was on that square, maybe your overall position on the board would be better. I'm taking development into consideration too, advancing your pawns forward, putting pressure on such a square to gain more of a foot hold on it, and because you want the piece your attacking to retreat to a particular square for whatever reason.

So my question is, is there any more to it? Did I just sum up pretty much every common reason why someone would attack a piece even though it could retreat? I thought this was a good question to ask. Nobody wants to "miss" something you know lol. My rating isn't so good and I haven't even played many games so if your really good in chess, or you think I may haved missed something regardless of your rating, please respond. I'd really appreciate it.

Uh, one more thing, if your answer is going to be to either win a piece or get someone into checkmate, I've thought of that haha

Ok. Cheers :)

You should never threaten things for the sake of threatening.

Before kicking opponents pieces around, consider

• Where will the piece go? Can it go to a better square than it is on now? (If so, don't kick. Let him waste the tempo to improve his piece -- unless your gain from the kick is much greater than his gain..).
• Do you gain anything from the kick? Improving one of your pieces or getting a pawn advance going are valid reasons.
• Does the kick allow tactics (i.e. kicking a defender of a pawn away, so the pawn hangs)
• Are you short on time in a blitz game? Then a threat can be a way to pass the ball your opponent so you can look for a better move while he thinks.

Essentially, explain to yourself exactly what you gain by the threat -- and if you cannot see any gain, maybe look for alternative moves.

-taking initiative a.i. forcing your opponent to respond to your move
-not losing/winning tempo with your own development
-getting more control over the board a.i. coverage
-maybe it's an important square or outpost
-most of the time the piece is forced to a less favourable square

that's the most I can think of at the moment.

^Excellent advice there.

EDIT: this was to Tapani's post

Thanks guys :)

This depends on the position.  Give a position and I'll answer.

I didn't read the thread, just the OP...  I concur with RogerOT. 

If the threat can be completely avoided by the opponent, then yes, one reason is because your piece is simply better on the new square.

Really the only other idea I can think of is it's not a better square, but it's a forcing move, and you're playing for a repetition or zugzwang.

And it completely ignores the OP's question too

I guess everyone loves it lol.

That's all the reason I need. 

I guess my post didn't make much sense though haha.

If the opponent can ignore the move, and your piece isn't on a better square... then it's a bad move.  The only time you'd do this I guess is if it offers practical chances (it's only bad if your opponent finds difficult moves).  I guess you'd also play a move like this if it were the only legal move or the least of all bad moves heh.

Often you find deep combinations when your moves force your opponent into very few choices.  For example, you might notice that if you attack your oppenents queen, he only has one choice of where to retreat.  Suddenly you have another board position that you know you can attain that your opponent may not have looked over carefully.  If it looks the least bit awkward for your opponent, you might focus hard on what can be done from that not yet realised position.  Perhaps in that next position, you find another move that leaves your opponent only one or two reasonable choices.  Before you know it, you're looking at a position several moves in advance that your opponent hasn't thought about.  It's usually there that you start to see ways to win a piece, or a pawn.

In a nutshell, if you're making moves that leave your opponent few choices, it increases the depth you can confidently examine.  And it is hard for your opponent to see the same depth if you have lots of choices at each move and he has few.

Well, if the opponent can ignore the threat...then how does it qualify as a threat?  I'm afraid this latest permutation has lost me.

I think it's akin to when you "sacrifice" a rook to win a queen or give mate.  I've always found these so called fake sacrifices to be funny.

1st stage of chess development:  drooling on the board like a monkey.

If they don't, then that's how the 1st stagers do it too.  Maybe not the most descriptive stage.

Correct.  e.g. if I'm as blue as a red block then I'm not blue at all.

Typically, many of the correspondence games I play tend to be very positional and in these situations I may attack a piece that can run if it means obtaining some type of advantage or imbalance though mostly I will spend much of the time moving my pieces into the most advantageous squares I can get, often ignoring a piece entirely if it holds no! threat to the overall position on the board. Other times,

Sorry, I am posting from my phone and it is not really suited to the site very well. [Other times, I will, knock a piece around to put it on a bad square or out of action entirely. But in nearly every situation, I will rarely kick a piece if I am not gaining something from the move(s).

About the only concrete example I can relate this to indirectly is when I get to play Bg4 in the Anglo-Indian English Opening Variation and my opponents will play the h3-g4 kicking moves while I have held a Knight on f6 and have been working to pin the f3 Knight to the Queen. Once g4?! Has been played on the assumption that Black is trapped, I will sacrifice the Knight with Nxg4 and after hxg4 Bxg4, White has destroyed his castled position and still is burdened with the pin, usually resulting in a decisive victory.

Obviously if one were playing the Chase Variation of the Alekhine Defense, then chasing the Knight is OK to a point as long as you can still complete development.

Obviously it all really depends on the needs of that particular position and if there is anything to be gained from the move as many others have previously said.