Attack and Defense are methods. Neither is better than the other as skill in both areas is necessary to play the game well. The most exciting games are those where both players must play a double edged position where both attack and defense are necessary. If one side dominates the other, in attack or defense, the outcome is more certain and thus less interesting.
Attack vs Defense
Sort:
Jul 21, 2015
0
#43
Me thinks our OP is a "Romantic" player - he either wins in the opening with a brilliant attack, or goes out in flames...
Lalit0007 wrote:
Which is better Attack or Defense
Depends on the position.
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
pfren wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
pfren, I would have to say that considering the human element, the results favor the attacker. Chess between one human and another human is no longer scientific. Psychologically, it is an advantage to be attacking.
I've also noticed that counter attacks are more successful than initial attacks.
The results invariably favor the one who makes the fewer mistakes.
which is usually the attacker!
Your agruement has already been defeated by your own words. Notice your below previous comment.
Justs99171 wrote:
Lasker was the first great defender, but Nimzo really developed defensive strategy a lot. So you had how many years? Decades? or even centuries of attacking chess development before anyone seriously started to develop defensive concepts ... You did have Philidor and Stenitz but chess under modern rules began in the 1490s and we had maybe the greatest defensive player ever become world champion in 1963. Now think of all the great attacking players that preceded Petrosian! Also, this style was never very popular! I would have to agree with the previous poster that people don't understand defensive chess as well as attacking. Anyway, the stress and pressure of being attacked expends and fatigues you more than doing the attacking. Also, if you make a mistake while defending, it's probably a loss. If you botch a good attack, it's probably a draw.
I think you can make a slight inaccuracy while attacking and still win. I think if you make a slight inaccuracy while defending, you're dead.
If there have always been more attackers than defenders in chess through out the centuries. Than the attackers will always have higher stats than the defenders.
Which would mean the comparison between the attackers and defenders would be an incorrect comparison.
Which in turn will make all the stats of the attackers winning completely useless.
For example:
If I was to say 5 attackers won there game and only 3 defenders won there game. Than you would think the attackers are better since they won 2 more games than the defenders.
However, if I was say the pool of attackers started off with 100 attackers and out of the 100 attackers only 5 of them won.
Than if I was to say the pool of defenders started off with 3 defenders and all 3 defenders won.
You will see the attackers only had a 5% success rate when the defenders had a 100% success rate.
Which means if the pools were even with 100 attackers and 100 defenders
Only 5 attackers would win and all 100 defenders would win making the defenders better.
Which is why the above stats you are talking about are completely rubbish.
Lastly, In chess attacking and defense can sometimes be done simultaneously. So saying all the attackers were attacking might not be true. They could have been defending or vice versa.
Like the art of war.
Fighting with out fighting.
Attacking with out attacking.
Defending with out defending.
Your example is flawed. 100 attackers and 3 defenders? Assuming the defenders knocked off 3 attackers, who did the attackers play the other 97 games against? The gained 5 wins and suffered 92 losses against players that have neither an aggressive or defensive tendency?
Taulmaril wrote:
Your example is flawed. 100 attackers and 3 defenders? Assuming the defenders knocked off 3 attackers, who did the attackers play the other 97 games against? The gained 5 wins and suffered 92 losses against players that have neither an aggressive or defensive tendency?
The example I showed was showing the flaw in Justs99171 agruement. He was agruing the only people who won chess games a long time ago were attackers.
He was saying that attackers faced other attackers and the better attacker always won.
He didn't think there were any defenders. Which makes his whole agruement wrong.
"Lasker was the first great defender, but Nimzo really developed defensive strategy a lot. So you had how many years? Decades? or even centuries of attacking chess development before anyone seriously started to develop defensive concepts ... You did have Philidor and Stenitz but chess under modern rules began in the 1490s and we had maybe the greatest defensive player ever become world champion in 1963. Now think of all the great attacking players that preceded Petrosian"
He doesn't understand attacking and defending can happen simultaneously in chess.
I believe the main reason Justs99171 does not think there were alot of very strong defensive players in the early centuries is becuase many of the early century players didn't publish alot of books on defense.
Just because a Grand master doesn't write books about defending does not mean they can not defend very well. Which the concept totally flys right past him. He doesn't comprehend that idea.
Nimzo really developed defensive strategy a lot.
^^^ See what I mean.
I fail to see how he can prove there was no defenders before Nimzo.
The whole example and agruement he is making makes no sense. Which was the point I was getting at.
You seem to be the only one smart enough to pick up on the point I was getting at.
His logic in chess is fundamentally flawed.
What I find funny is when he said the following statement.
"Most games that black actually did win, black was for some reason attacking or counter attacking"
The above text in blue is what he said. Now read the part I have highlighted in red. Doesn't that just make you laugh. Sure did make me laugh.
He doesn't think anything through when he types I believe.
For a person to counter attack they would have to have been attacked at one point during the game.
Which means if they have been attacked at one point during the game.
It would mean they would of had to do some sort of defense.
Which means if they did defense they must of been successful with there defense.
If they failed with there defense the game would be over and they would of gotten checkmated leaving them with out the possiblity of counter attacking.
However, It doesn't matter because I have stopped talking to him. All he does is insult people. Furthermore, You can not even have a conversation with out him trying to call you some name or cussing you out. He knows everything about chess apparently.
According to him Grand Masters in the turn of the century did not know anything about defense.
They didn't know anything about defense yet most of them sure did not get scholar mated every game.
How do you suppose those early Century players avoided being scholar mated with out doing defense? Nimzo was not even around to give out any defensive strategy Oh My.
Fiveofswords wrote:
steinitz who was the first official wc was kinda known for his odd habit of shuffling pieces around on his back rank. not sure i would call him a defender per se but he was great at refuting unsound attacks and enjoyed closed positions
Indeed, I believe steinitz had some defense habits as well. He understood the importance of the center and how it aids in defending and attacking.
He was def not the only one.
You can even go as far back as Damiano, Ruy-Lopez, and Salvio.
They understand some defensive idea's. Which many do not understand. Of course there is a huge gap compared to all the new defensive concepts which have been added in today modern world. However, It still holds true that they did have some ability.
Damiano in fact published a refuted line which is name after him. He single handedly pointed out how 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 was not an acceptable line.
He showed how the move 2...f6 was not a proper defense of the e5 pawn.
More examples of defensive idea's with Philidor playing his 2...d6 move to defend the e5 pawn. Obviously they was aware there pawn was in danger and made efforts into trying to put up some sort of defense.
I have seen some games by people like Richard Reti, Mikhail Chigorin, and Akiba Rubinstein.
Just to name a few!
In fact, Akiba Rubinstein has a variation in the Queens Gambit which is still used and playable till this very day in high level chess.
An it involves a e3 move which acts as a very nice defensive move supporting the d4 pawn.
Lalit, first of all both attack and defense are important elements of chess.
Perhaps you should listen to experienced chess player, including IM pfren.
Carlsen is not attacking player. Same as Karpov he is chess grinder.
I know attacking is more fun, but learning how to defend correctly and using it would boost your rating by few hundred points.
Heres a novel approach. Why not study the entire game?
Nov 11, 2015
0
#53
I disagree. I think they are both equal parts of chess, and neither one is more flawed than the other.
Do not worry Gm_andrewfeng I am not going to comment to him any more.
It is obvious Justs99171 doesn't understand.
He is calling me and idiot. While, He is using bias historical games.