Always think at the drawbacks of the opponent then think of a plan
WHY AM I STRUGGLING TO ATTACK?
Sort:
play ro death endgame. there are no shortcuts. struggle strive and prosper.
Some possibilities:
Simple Attacking Plans by Fred Wilson (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090402/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review874.pdf
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Simple-Attacking-Plans-77p3731.htm
Attacking Chess for Club Players by Herman Grooten
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9032.pdf
Chess for Hawks
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9041.pdf
The Chess Attacker's Handbook
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/The_Chess_Attacker's_Handbook.pdf
oh thanks for posting up every book that has in its title attack. now maybe post the differences of the books whats good the level etc. thanks
I suggest looking at the reviews and samples.
May 8, 2018
0
#7
"At that time my only strategy was to play solid positional or in other words, passive chess..."
The above statement, along with your ratings, tells me all i need to know.
kindaspongey wrote:
cuz I couldn't just google for chess books with the word attack in it. so thanks for your suggestion
I suggest looking at the reviews and samples.
May 8, 2018
0
#9
imsean_pacadaaa wrote:
What is the secret of attacking chess? Anyone plss. I need some advise.
Attacks flow from a superior position.
Don't think of attack as a way of gaining the advantage. It isn't.
Attack is a way of exploiting the advantage that you've gained by maneuver. It's a way of converting one form of advantage (eg: an advantage in Tempo) into a different and more convenient form of advantage (eg: mate or extra material).
Oh thank you very much!
catdogorb wrote:
imsean_pacadaaa wrote:
my only strategy was to play solid positional or in other words, passive chess, waiting for my opponent to make a mistake.
Positional chess is not passive.
Passive is a bad word in chess. No strong player chooses to play passively. Passive pieces are bad pieces. Always.
In very general terms, active pieces are ones that either threaten an enemy weakness (like a weak pawn, or a square near the enemy king) or are threatening to infiltrate into the enemy position (like infiltrating to double your rooks on the 7th rank).
imsean_pacadaaa wrote:
So realized that in chess, material and a passive position isn't enough, you must have to attack
If by "attack" you mean play actively, then yes, absolutely.
imsean_pacadaaa wrote:
But that's the point, many times I tried to attack, also many times I consumed so much material that my end game is falling apart and the other situation is I am getting mated first.
In general you should seek activity in the area (kingside, center or queens) where you have more space, more pieces, or ideally both of these things.
The french advance variation is one of the best examples
The pawns tell us white should seek play on the kingside, and black should seek play on the queenside because that is where each player has more space.
In the queen's gambit, a similar situation can arise. I made a post for beginners about it not so long ago.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/queenside-attacks
imsean_pacadaaa wrote:
What is the secret of attacking chess? Anyone plss. I need some advise.
As for attacking the opponent's king, players don't get to choose when this works. Some positions allow you to go for an attack, and in other positions it's not possible to attack the opponent's king.
In positions where it is possible, some basic elements are:
- Bring more attackers
- Remove defenders (often by trading them off)
- Open lines (often with sacrifices to remove the king's pawn cover)
- The idea of focal points as discussed in Vukovic's book The Art of Attack in Chess (as a simple example, you can organize your pieces to attack the same square in order to threaten mate).
Here's a really standard attack I played not so long ago
This really helped!
catdogorb wrote:
... Vukovic's Art of Attack in Chess ...
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708234424/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/aac.pdf
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/assorted-recent-books
catdogorb wrote:
... Gormally's Mating the Castled King.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708092640/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review941.pdf
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/MatingtheCastledKing-excerpt.pdf
Play according to the general requirement of the position. If you need to pressure a pawn, pressure it. If the position requires you to attack the king, then attack the king. If you need to use your pawn majority, use it.
There is this game by the great Capablanca, that is included in many chess book,s in which he punished Marshall(well known for his attacks) for playing not according to the requirement of the position.
imsean_pacadaaa wrote:
A couple of months ago while in an amateur tournament I realized tactics isn't enough. At that time my only strategy was to play solid positional or in other words, passive chess, waiting for my opponent to make a mistake. Since most of the players are experienced, almost all my games there are no rooms for errors ended up in boring, quiet draw. ALL.
So realized that in chess, material and a passive position isn't enough, you must have to attack. But that's the point, many times I tried to attack, also many times I consumed so much material that my end game is falling apart and the other situation is I am getting mated first.
What is the secret of attacking chess? Anyone plss. I need some advise.
Btw, I'm in line with Queens Gambit and French so almost all of my games are closed games.
I have the opposite problem. I am impatient and always try to create something. When someone plays simple solid moves vs me, in my struggle to find something, I either lose on time or start playing really bad moves. My games very rarely go to distance and I am pretty good at endgames...
Anyways, in my view, the way you play is the proper way, at least for rapid and blitz. I want to shift my game in that direction, while you want the opposite. For classical chess, you probably need to think even more than simply playing solid positional moves.
catdogorb wrote:
blueemu wrote:
imsean_pacadaaa wrote:
What is the secret of attacking chess? Anyone plss. I need some advise.
Attacks flow from a superior position.
Don't think of attack as a way of gaining the advantage. It isn't.
Attack is a way of exploiting the advantage that you've gained by maneuver. It's a way of converting one form of advantage (eg: an advantage in Tempo) into a different and more convenient form of advantage (eg: mate or extra material).
Basically this.
A mating attack in chess is not really an element by itself. Attacks are rooted in strong strategic, positional, and tactical knowledge and skill. Not every position will allow you to attack, but in some positions you can leverage your trumps to pursue one.
Often when the defense is strong, you have to trade your strong attack for something else, like a favorable (or winning) endgame.
both excellent posts
May 9, 2018
0
#17
Every time i try to attack , i make inaccuracies. And after few moves i blunder which takes me from winning to losing position. here is my recent game. you'll see odds were in my favor and then i blundered... It happens every time i try to attack
You didn't take advantage of the discovered check on move 17, Prashant_1947
Prashant_1947 wrote:
Every time i try to attack , i make inaccuracies. And after few moves i blunder which takes me from winning to losing position. here is my recent game. you'll see odds were in my favor and then i blundered... It happens every time i try to attack
You din't play bad. Advancing the F paws was your mistake imo. 17... Nxc2 would had been much better... winning a pawn and the one rook, while securing the other. What might probably help you, is to instead of keep searching for a mate, to redirect your efforts to winning material at the appropriate moment. It would had worked here. Haven't analyzed the position, but the move I suggested on first look, looks like a winning move to me.
Essentially, it's what catdogorb suggested above: "Often when the defense is strong, you have to trade your strong attack for something else, like a favorable (or winning) endgame.". In your game, you had something more concrete than a favorable endgame, material.
I think you have potential to become much stronger Prashant_1947.
good luck!!
A couple of months ago while in an amateur tournament I realized tactics isn't enough. At that time my only strategy was to play solid positional or in other words, passive chess, waiting for my opponent to make a mistake. Since most of the players are experienced, almost all my games there are no rooms for errors ended up in boring, quiet draw. ALL.
So realized that in chess, material and a passive position isn't enough, you must have to attack. But that's the point, many times I tried to attack, also many times I consumed so much material that my end game is falling apart and the other situation is I am getting mated first.
What is the secret of attacking chess? Anyone plss. I need some advise.
Btw, I'm in line with Queens Gambit and French so almost all of my games are closed games.