I usually don't think when I move, I just let my instincts guide me.
THE attack question
Sort:
Tough question--usually prefer material gain. But depends if positional move bears permanent advantage rather then temporary.
Well no two imbalances can be perfectly equal, can they?
Dang, what offsets a whole knight without going over? Like connected passers or something? A strong attack maybe?
That's quite an imbalance, I'd only go for it if I was comfortable i.e. if I didn't think my opponent's side of the bargain was easy for him to play. To put it another way, against a lower rated player, I'd be more likely to grab the material. Against a master I'd be less likely.
Give a master a strong attack on my king would be tough -- give a lesser player connected passers for a piece and it's likely he'll blunder the pawns.
In most cases, I am going to say position > material
oinquarki wrote:
Well no two imbalances can be perfectly equal, can they?
Probably not. But we're just playing pretend anyways 
Would you rather....:
Go up in material, say a minor piece, not just a pawn (i.e. a gambit), for a positional disadvantage that is equal and opposite to the material gained
or...
would you rather give up material and gain an equal opposite positional advantage?
Naturally the idea of a material advantage might be to trade off pieces and win an endgame where as a positional advantage may require going for a quicker win or fighting to regain greater material.
Thoughts?