youll lose almost everytime
What are your thoughts on playing extremely defensive chess?
Sort:
Dec 20, 2023
0
#3
its like blocking the entire time in a boxing match youll probably let a few punches through and start to fall apart, the best defense is a good offense because you need to control space if you dont win space or material the computer will say you're losing every time, its a blunder to defend the entire time you will lose especially against an engine. In the opening youre fighting for space and playing developing moves is perfectly fine but then its down to either winning material or gaining space not defending for no reason, you cant defend the entire time its literally impossible
TheNameofNames wrote:
its like blocking the entire time in a boxing match youll probably let a few punches through and start to fall apart, the best defense is a good offense because you need to control space if you dont win space or material the computer will say you're losing every time, its a blunder to defend the entire time you will lose especially against an engine. In the opening youre fighting for space and playing developing moves is perfectly fine but then its down to either winning material or gaining space not defending for no reason, you cant defend the entire time its literally impossible
This is an interesting perspective. I like it!
llama_l wrote:
Viznik wrote:
If you want to see a game I played and analyzed, as well as wrote more in detail on my club page, you can read it here: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/castle-doctrine-playing-hyper-defensive
I looked at the game, and sure, it's fine. Putting nothing past your 3rd rank for a long time isn't technically correct, but you developed quickly, castled and connected your rooks, then you pushed pawns. This is a fine way of playing.
Just don't confuse "defensive" for "passive." Passive chess is always bad, but being defensive with well developed and coordinated pieces plus a sound pawn structure is fine.
Thanks llama — you’re definitely right me thinks. It’s one thing being defensive, another being passive. I guess, being defensive =/= missing attacking opportunities. Rather, defensive =/= strong structure waiting for pppurtonity to strike
Dec 20, 2023
0
#6
It is not good, since the opposing side will always break through your position, either with pawns, pieces, trading pieces to an endgame, an attack, or checkmate.
Dec 20, 2023
0
#7
I think it’s one of the best ways of playing actually. Looking at most top GM’s they often play like this. They make small improving moves but don’t take much risk, eating for their opponents to create weaknesses. By doing nothing I don’t mean literally nothing, but rather lack of any obvious attempt to drastically change the nature of the position
Dec 20, 2023
0
#8
Viznik wrote:
TheNameofNames wrote:
its like blocking the entire time in a boxing match youll probably let a few punches through and start to fall apart, the best defense is a good offense because you need to control space if you dont win space or material the computer will say you're losing every time, its a blunder to defend the entire time you will lose especially against an engine. In the opening youre fighting for space and playing developing moves is perfectly fine but then its down to either winning material or gaining space not defending for no reason, you cant defend the entire time its literally impossible
This is an interesting perspective. I like it!
im saying the same thing llama is it depends on the position so i agree with what he was saying if the position is closed youre not playing defensively really youre just improving the position so youre actually getting ready to attack, which is kind of like defending like in boxing waiting for a counterattack or opportunity but defending implies youre being attacked and if youre being attacked and the other person is doing it well its probably going to hurt, defending in chess can sometimes just mean defending a pawn or something, that is usually necessary unless its an immortal game thats my two cents
Dec 20, 2023
0
#9
defending can be a single move and loss in tempo or a full out onslaught there are kind of a couple ways to "defend" in chess.
Dec 20, 2023
0
#10
you can defend the king or you can defend a pawn, if you defend the king wrong its always bad its one of the first lessons in chess, king getting attacked is bad and something bad will happen
I think it is fine, but you cant be passive. Slightly improving your position every turn is good chess, even if you aren't making threats every turn.
Dec 20, 2023
0
#12
Avoid-Me-I-Play_False wrote:
I cheated again a lot today...
you wouldnt cheat dude i know you
Dec 20, 2023
0
#13
Avoid-Me-I-Play_False wrote:
Well, look at my games the last hours..
nah that wasnt you
Dec 20, 2023
0
#14
Avoid-Me-I-Play_False wrote:
The most amazing is theat they did not BAN me..
its because you have a good reputation
Viznik wrote:
What are your thoughts on an extremely defensive chess style? One where you make almost no aggressive moves, rather simply tighten your defense as much as possible, simply waiting for your opponent to make an “over-aggressive” mistake?
If you want to see a game I played and analyzed, as well as wrote more in detail on my club page, you can read it here: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/castle-doctrine-playing-hyper-defensive
But, is a “castle doctrine” style of chess good for a mid level player? Or, do you think it runs in to problems?
What style of chess do you prefer?
If you want to see a game I played and analyzed, as well as wrote more in detail on my club page, you can read it here: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/castle-doctrine-playing-hyper-defensive
But, is a “castle doctrine” style of chess good for a mid level player? Or, do you think it runs in to problems?
What style of chess do you prefer?
The only place it works is beginners' chess on very fast time controls. Otherwise, against a good player you probably lose.
marqumax wrote:
I think it’s one of the best ways of playing actually. Looking at most top GM’s they often play like this. They make small improving moves but don’t take much risk, eating for their opponents to create weaknesses. By doing nothing I don’t mean literally nothing, but rather lack of any obvious attempt to drastically change the nature of the position
Good point
Did any of you actually check the game that was linked? None of the things the OP wrote about happened in that game. White didn't play defensive at all, instead he played quite aggressive. Opposite side castling followed by a pawnstorm.
llama_l wrote:
Yes, as I said I looked at the game. Opening only on your 3rd rank can potentially cause problems, but in that game development was fast, king was safe, and then pawns were pushed. It's a reasonable way to play.
My problem is that the OP describes a sort of playstyle (extremely defensive), then presents a game that's the total opposite of that.
@1
"What are your thoughts on an extremely defensive chess style?" ++ It is probably the right way. In some positions you can and should attack, but in all positions you can and should defend.
"simply waiting for your opponent to make an “over-aggressive” mistake?"
++ Many great players like Steinitz, Capablanca, and Korchnoi liked being attacked.
Every aggressive move leaves a weakness.
"is a “castle doctrine” style of chess good for a mid level player?" ++ It is viable up to world champion level e.g. Petrosian. Now Karjakin and Giri are known for defensive play.
"do you think it runs in to problems?"
++ No. It is never wrong to defend, it is sometimes wrong to attack.
"What style of chess do you prefer?" ++ 'Style? I have no style' - Karpov
If you want to see a game I played and analyzed, as well as wrote more in detail on my club page, you can read it here: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/castle-doctrine-playing-hyper-defensive
But, is a “castle doctrine” style of chess good for a mid level player? Or, do you think it runs in to problems?
What style of chess do you prefer?