the positional game
What is better? An agressive game or a conservative game
Sort:
well,mixture of both always results in better strategy
May 2, 2014
0
#5
Aggressive games are healthier for the sport in regard to popularizing chess.
blitz agressive, long conservative most of the times depends the position
Traveltime0 wrote:
What is better? An agressive game or a conservative game? I like agressive, but ant mistake i lose the game =/
In chess there is only the initiative/attack. If you do not have the initiative or have lost it, then your opponent has the initiative and you are defending. Unless your opponent chooses purposely to not press the initiative.
There is no perfect defensive position. Therefore when you have the initiative/attack you are looking for holes in your opponent's defensive position without of course allowing any weaknesses in your offensive position. The facts are that every move in chess has advantages and disadvantages. The trick is to select a move where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Repeated attacks against an enemy defensive position will produce one of 3 results. The oppponent defends correctly and equalizes the position. The oppponent defends incorrectly and an advantage is gained by the side with the initiative. The opponent defends/attacks correctly and regains the initiative.
In actual games the initiative changes hands many times. A key technique known by strong players is named KILL COUNTERPLAY. This means that once you have gained the initiative/attack it is next very important to consider the opponent's potential for counterattack in every variation. Then select the variation that KILLS COUNTERPLAY.
Keeping in mind the factors written above it is best to select a middle of the road approach. In other words, both an overly aggressive approach and and overly conservative approach are going to get you into to trouble.
What is better? An agressive game or a conservative game? I like agressive, but ant mistake i lose the game =/