Why is Attacking Chess so much more Fun!

~~~

Alright, so I played another Queen’s Gambit game (rematch) after a humiliating defeat using the black pieces (so frustrating). I may have made some questionable moves in this game to keep the attack going, however, if you know me then this is not abnormal play from me when playing White. Somebody once said (on this site) that I play “wild chess”, lol. After what I consider an unusual opening from my opponent – it looked like he had every intention from the beginning to win my c-pawn and hold on to it – I managed to safety my King and go on the offensive. I can see that d4 opening can be open as well depending on how your opponent wants to play it out…for me, open games are so much more exciting than the closed games that some find to their taste. My questionable move is 14) dxc5, as it opens the diagonal and leaves my Rook on a1 to capture. However, I saw that after my own capture on a1, I have an attack on his h8 Rook in return which must be dealt with…otherwise he would also lose his own Rook; in return I have check to give, Nd6+!

The question? Is sacrificing the exchange on a1 a mistake? Was there a way for Black to stop the attack on his uncastled King’s position (BTW, I love it when I can get to the King because my opponent does not castle early enough – King hunts are fun). Would I be able to turn my attack into a winning attack?...this is a challenge I was willing to accept; I had to see if my tactical vision was right…this made this game exciting for me. Whether my opponent made a mistake in his defense of the position is really not my concern, my ability to attack with vigor and accurately respond to his defense was my ultimate goal. Winning games (especially on your own merit | play) is so satisfying when you go for it and produce a more memorable game.

So why does attacking chess feel more with the spirit of the game? Do you also find this to be true for you as I find it with me?

~~~

~~~

I think c6 before n-d6 check might be slightly more accurate...it gives black the opportunity to fall for n anywhere n-d6+ followed by n-b7++ winning the queen(that is if there isn't anything better which it seems there might be).

I got Spielmann's book "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess" and read the introduction where he says:
"The beauty of a game of chess is usually appraised, and with good reason, according to the sacrifices it contains.  On principle we incline to rate a sacrificial game more highly than a positional game.  Instinctively we place the moral value above the scientific.  We honor Capablanca, but our hearts beat higher when Morphy's name is mentioned."

And I couldn't disagree more.  The book may be well written and have useful information, but I was wondering if I were still willing to read it.

He goes on:
"The experts like to disparage the habit of valuing a game according to the amount of material sacrificed.  This is understandable to a certain extent, but nonetheless deplorable.  The expert is too preoccupied with technique to be able to share the simple-hearted joy of the multitude."

I so strongly disagreed with this tripe that I never picked the book up again.  Sure there are players who value the beauty of an attack, but I love to see players like karpov or capa take a small advantage and grind their opponent to dust with it.  I see many of Morphy's games as tricks against much weaker players. 

Positionally sound sacs are great to see and fun to play, so I have nothing against attacking or sacrifice itself.

So anyway, there are different opinions on what makes a game good or fun.

Nice game though, activity is more important than material -- you sure rolled up this opponent

While smashing through someone's defenses and putting his material to the sword is certainly fun, there is also something to be said for slowly positionally choking the life out of your opponent, bottling them up into a smaller and smaller space.

That's what makes chess so fun... there are so many ways to play.

 I just don't remember games that are positional, I tend to remember games that have great tactics involve; Those are the games that end up being memorable.

I am always proudest of the games where I gain a small positional advantage, trade it down to a favorable endgame, and win. I feel that a win with brilliant tactics is taking advantage of my opponent's mistakes, while winning positionally is winning with clean play.

Maybe I'm wrong, but whenever I pull one of those off (fairly rare) I really feel like I have grown as a chess player.

How descriptive! Now I feel cruel.

From my opponent's point of view, it must seem like being in an MRI, unable to move and they are playing a Barry Manilow song and it begins to skip.

 Winning tactically doesn't necessarily mean your opponent made a mistake (or a blunder)...I saw a Fischer game where by move 11 (per side, or 22 moves total), the game was actually over in another 10 moves...no, the opponent did not resign, but the continuation was so clear to Fischer that there was no other way to play the game but for him to win. Anyway, his opponent did not make a mistake tactically for this to happen, just that he did not develop accurately enough to prevent the game from being over so quickly. With that said, at my level, most wins in a tactical fashion is due to my opponent making mistakes/blunders...however, if it's there, shouldn't I go for it? If I feel there is a win, then should I not, at the very least, try for the win even though I could technically continue in a quite fashion?

Of course, if your opponent makes a mistake, you should put your foot on his throat, and step down until it crunches. It is the hard heart that kills.

I was in no way trying to suggest that a win by tactical means, even one where your opponent blundered, is any less a win. He blundered, you didn't, you win.

I just like to win the other way. Probably because I so rarely pull it off. I liken it to football. Sometimes you win because you stone cold stop your opponent, and never let him gain a yard. Sometimes you win because he throws a pick, and you score. Both are good wins, but the former probably feels better to the defense.