offence is the best defence. thats the style they are playing.. it does not matter what type it is.. they are attacking you and are trying to shut you down. you need to turn it around so you can put then on the defensive position.. control the game is key to winning. that i lack myself at the moment .as im still i newbie
Defending against aggressive players
Sort:
juufa72 wrote:
It was chess with my friend (who I never played against because I didn't know he played) on the grass in a park in Poland.
Time: No time only a "courtesy clock". Which is about 1-2min a move after the standard openings.
Thanks for your answers.
Even with those time limits if he knows the openings better than you do you will lose. Strong players use short time limits such as blitz (5min) chess to reinforce the memorized lines in their repertoire and to sharpen their time pressure skills with the clock for when they face those types of situtations in otb tournament games.
The best solution I can suggest given your anwers is to do what Capablance use to do. Exchange at every opportunity. Take away his weapons and play for the endgame. Do not exchange if you are losing the minor exchange (your B for his N) unless you can clearly see that it is advantageous to your position. Do not allow him to get the B pair in an open pawn position. For the endgame Bishops are better in most open pawn positions with pawns on both sides of the board because Bs can get across the board in one move, Ns take 4-5. Knights are better in most closed pawn positions or with pawns on only one side of the board especially if he can post a N on a central square defended by a pawn that cannot be driven off by one of your pawns.
If he has good endgame technique he will be looking to acquire some or all of those advantages I mentioned above, or he will steer the game into a R and pawn endgame. The main thing to remember is that most R and p endgames are a draw. Another thing you might already know is that your Rook(s) belong behind passer enemy pawns.
@juufa72
Read all of the posts in your forum topic. Almost all of them tell you to counter attack and recognize the holes in your opponents attack, return sacrificed material, exchange in order to simplify the position, etc. There is something missing. There are no specifics about how you acquire the playing strength to recognize those opportunities in the position. There is a way for you to acquire the playing strength but it will require some time. It will probably take about 3 months.
I am going to use an example from professional and college basketball to explain the reason why you have to study and practice basic checkmate endgames. How does the player know how much arm strength and leg strength to use to swish a 3-pointer? The answer is simple, it's muscle memory. He has practiced that shot so many times that he can do it in his sleep. He can see the ball going through the hoop in his mind and at the same time his muscle memory kicks in.
It is the same with endgames in chess. Take for example the basic checkmate endgames in chess. What you have to know is that in every basic checkmate endgame the same endgame technique is used. I call it corralling the king. It is the same in all of them (K+R vs. K, K+Q vs. K, K+2Bs vs. K, K+B+N vs. K), you fence the king in, you drive him into the corner by making the fenced in area smaller and smaller and then deliver mate.
You have to practice those basic checkmates until you can do them in your sleep. Then, when you are playing a game something magical happens. Those same basic fencing in(corraling) patterns will become apparent to you when a similar pattern is reached in a game that you are playing, even though it is mixed in with pawns and other pieces in the position you are looking at. No matter whether it is your position or your opponent's that pattern will jump up off the chess board and smack you in the forehead. I know, I have had it happen to me. Because, I can do the basic checkmate endgames in my sleep.
The same rule applies to all endgames. You have to practice them so much that you can do them in your sleep.
Anyway, good luck with becoming a 'professional gunslinger' very strong player.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
Estragon wrote:
If you want an excellent counterattacking defender to study, Korchnoi is one of the best.
As to playing against hyper-aggressive opponents, it is usually true that the wild attacking players hate to be on defense, so playing for the initiative early, even at the cost of a pawn you don't really get enough for, can work. Like boxers, the hardest punchers don't like the taste of their own blood.
BUT if you prefer a more solid style, that may not be the way to go. You shouldn't try to be something you are not just because of who you are playing. You have to play YOUR game, first and foremost. Also, you want to play the best move in every position, or choose the one among equal candidates which best suits your own taste, without regard to the opponent. Play the board, not the man.
But knowing you are facing a very aggressive player can be dealt with. As a positional and defensive player, you survive premature attacks by not creating weaknesses. If you have no weaknesses, any attack will be unsound. If you perservere in making good, solid developing moves and not voluntarily weakening your pawn structure or King's position, aggressive players can become frustrated or bored - both of which lead to errors.
Which brings me to the last point: when an over-aggressive player launches a premature and speculative attack, it is rarely enough just to repulse it with defensive moves. He will just regroup and try again! When the opponent overreaches, he must be punished. You have to be willing to launch a counterattack, to pursue the retreating army, to follow through and create your own threats.
Passive defense can only go so far. Ali managed to defend the stronger Foreman's attack with his "Rope-a-dope" strategy of covering up and not getting hit hard as the opponent flailed away, but he only won in the end by coming off the ropes and hitting Foreman hard and decisively. You have to be willing and able to do that against every opponent, or you are just a sitting duck.
hmmm... I disagree you need to counter-attack sharply. Ali won by keep his material (strength) up while Foreman lost his. Then Ali won the endgame easily. There was no counter-attack by him early on. Who is going to claim that you should passively throw around a queen vs rook ending? Nobody says that, that is to be won, so defensive play will do more than "get you so far".
Most aggressive attacks are defeated by the defender saying "so what, where's your attack?" and tying up all loose ends so that the attacker has no attacking chances for his material. It may be exchanging down material or just by solid defensive play.
There is no need to take chances with a counter-attack, best to make the position sterile with you ahead and a little technique will win you the game. And if you can't do that, then you need to work on it.
Dark_Falcon wrote:
No ideas...iam always the aggressor A real plague for me is a good and solid defender, who acts cold hearted on the board, creating no weaknesses in his position and in the end iam landing in a lost endgame.
Exactly, it appears the poster transpo above that said all the previous posters were saying counter-attack missed your post.
Well...thanks for your reply!
Its only my opinion, that i prefer playing against a counter player instead of a strong defender, because while its complicate to shut down your position on your kingside and launch an attack in the centre of against my king on the other side AT THE SAME TIME!
The question is, which side is faster, the attacker or the counter-attacker...but playing against a defense wall is much harder and sometimes very frustrating for the tactical player...
AnthonyCG wrote:
LOL.
Give me the initiative and I'm happy. I have no qualms against an opponent that will let me take shots at him.
I agree with you when you meet a poor and anxious defender...its the paradise for attackers, but i speak of experienced players with good defensive skills, who dont fall in panic when my Queen hits the h5-square and my rooks are doubled on the open f-file.
Why are you assuming that once the attack peters out, the attacker will be down on material, or in an inferior position?
Well, I played him again and I took the advice to try to counter-attack. I can't say that it "worked". Maybe due to bad moves on his behalf, I was able to repel his attack and deliver a checkmate?
and Game 2
Pardon the blunders. We're far from being masters of this game.
Mar 20, 2014
0
#29
Estragon - you see this?
You are famous! Or Infamous. Depending on how you look at it 
Apr 10, 2014
0
#31
Most of my "important" victories (ie: last round of a tournament, 1st prize on the line) have always been counter-attacking games rather than attacking games... and usually with the Black pieces. It might be just my odd left-handed style, though.
Nezhmetdinov beat Tal 3 out of their 4 meetings in tournament play.
Apr 10, 2014
0
#33
achja wrote:
Here's an example game (a blitz game on another server) against a much stronger player. In this game (with several mistakes from both) I had to defend for some time. One thing you can see in this game is that the defender should be willing to give back material. Lots of lower rated chess player are not willing to give back any material after the attacker sacrificed material. As a defender you should grab the chances to transpose to e.g. a slightly better endgame by giving back material.
Yes, it is very important to give back material if possible. It is also important to find ways of defending actively!
Both counter defending and sometimes 'sacking' back to transpose to better endgames are important. It is harder to remember when you are in tome pressure, so managing your time well, and as earlier mentioned, reviewing lots of tactical positions leading to mate are important. I remember playing many years ago in the NY open and being up a piece with my opponent sacking another piece to keep the queens on the board. I missed a chance to sack a piece back that would have stalled his attack and/or led to some forced exchanges. Instead in the time scramble, my opponent grabbed a perpetual checking position. I had mixed feelings: if I had seen the board more clearly, I might have the right transposition and time to counter sack. I do remember having only a minute to make 10 moves ( my opponent had quite a bit more time), so in some ways I was happy to get the draw and not lose on time.
I am generally a passive player, but I find that the best way to treat an aggressive player is to act like you are meeting out their aggression while still developing your posititional advantage. Chase pieces while you develop. Accept exchanges if they improve position. And be smart about your pieces. Shoving a dark squared bishop down an overly aggressive players throat can make them rethink their tactics.
Cedroke wrote:
Ulf Andersson is not to be forgotten. He was almost impossible to beat.
He only lost 232 out of the 2,290 games he played.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=12112
Another interesting fact about Anderson : He never lost ONE single game as white to Kasparov or Karpov. As white he could take it to a draw against anyone in the world if he decided to do so. But as black....thats another story.
One of the big pieces of advice I see here is to play the "best" move. While many times there is a best course of action, like starting a counter-attack to win material, gain the advantage, etc., there is often no objective best move, even at the grandmaster and super-grandmaster level, where evaluation is very precise and small distinctions can be quite apparent. It is more important that you still seek a best move that YOU believe in, the difference that will allow you to see past the near equal evaluations will be driven by your experience, a defensive "Iceman" (Kramnnik) or "Iron Tigran" (Petrosian) is the result of experience with aggression and what WORKS FOR THEM in dealing with it. Simply playing against powerful attackers and analyzing your mistakes will give you a sense of what WORKS TO WIN FOR YOU that you can use in the future. Whether it leads you to overall challenge and persecute aggression with your openings or to prophylactically crush your opponent doesn't matter, you will still sometimes find YOUR best move to be the contrary. While I've seen some say the existence of a style of play shows a player to be fundamentally weak, style really only is a small difference in your evaluations of the best move, and the apparentness of it is only that effect stacking move after move throughout out the entire game. Saying "I will play only play one type of move" is really the only thing you should avoid.
juufa72
p.s. It's a shame that I didn't write down the moves to show you my opponent's aggression! Wow! Not only did we play in the park (+32C and full sun) which was uncomfortable, but his attacking was relentless.
_________________________ __________ _______________________
It sounds like you got into a couple of rough and tumble games with a street chess player. Where did you play, Washington Square Park?
Were the 2 games played with a clock and If so were they blitz(5 minute games)?
Depending on your answers to my 2 questions I will help you.
It was chess with my friend (who I never played against because I didn't know he played) on the grass in a park in Poland.
Time: No time only a "courtesy clock". Which is about 1-2min a move after the standard openings.
-----------------
@All: Thank you very much for your time, hints and advice.
It is good to be aggressive when the time is right but for me the nuances and "poetry" of a closed, defensive game draws more of my interest.
Rebuffing a hyperaggressive attack and then counterattacking puts a smile on my face because I like to feel the attackers aggression turn on him which then causes his weapons to become liabilities.