Chess Defense

Do you think Defense win Championships in Chess?

I think strong defense as well as good attack wins Championship in chess..

You cannot only Hvae strong defense but no attack at all..

you will just draw alot and end up somewhere in the middle in the standings.

Well, in any chess game you both attack and defend to one extent, so I believe defending is necessary for any given win. However, there's a difference between defending (i.e. counter-attacking, re-routing forces and whatnot) and passively retreating from danger lines.

I think that the ability to defend is the difference between the top few placings in most tournaments. Okay, attacking ability is important and those won games will get you near the top for most tournaments, but I would also contend that the ability to defend an equal or inferior position and thus gain a draw or win is more difficult than winning in a position where you are better. This, I believe, is what seperates the best players in the championships spoken of: the ability to hold on when the going is tough, rather than more of the ability to annihilate when the going is easier.

Like i said before, attacking will get you wins, defending will get you draws.

But sometimes..  someone makes an attack on you.. you defend well and in the end he screws up then you switch from defending to attacking where your up a pawn or 2 then you end up winning because your defense was strong to overcome that attack!

Defending Attacking or counter Attack all goes together in chess.  You can display a great defence game of chess, on the other hand a good chess player is going to look for your loopholes, in doing so is going to contaract your complete defence.  So my point is to cut a long story short, Defend & Attack.

It can.

One word - Petrosian. 

Ive learned over time that if you are not attacking then you are usually losing.

Sometimes you do have to make a positional or preparation move sometimes but even that preparation move is setting up for an opportunity for a strategic advantage.

My basic rule is "If you are not attacking you are losing".

Of course there are exceptions to every rule.

Don't know about championships.  There is a time to attack and a time to defend.  I'm more defensive minded, experience tells me that most players attacks are flawed in some way.  If you defend your position properly then any attack is going to leave open the chance for you to launch an effective counterattack.  I think its a case of give and take.  I don't go into a game as black and think about attacking my opponents position.  I like to wait until he exposes the board.  As white its the same thing for me, my pieces look more attack orientated but this is just the nature of playing white.  If the chance presents itself to attack and continue attacking then I will take it.

 Its like the ying and yang. You have to have a good defence or you will be crushed by a strong offence.

You can win with an attack if your oponents defense or profylax fails. You can win with defense if you can intercept and stop your oponents plans for attack. When you have stopped your opponent by your strong defense you can (perhaps) capitalize on his mistakes and win.

There have been people with a "defensive" style who do well with it, but by defensive it's meant that the player does not try unclear attacks much and instead often prefers to defend a position, like a pawn up or something. They'd more likely accept a sac than play one. He doesn't actually want to defend all of the time if he has the initiative.