An attack is not the way to gain advantage. You gain the advantage by out-maneuvering your opponent, and then cash it in by attacking. An attack is the way to USE an already-existing advantage, to convert it into a more readily-usable form (such as checkmate or material advantage).
An attack launched in a position where the attacker has no pre-existing advantage will be repulsed (with correct play by the defender) and will result in a disadvantage for the attacker, not an advantage.
Hi. It's not necessarily about preference. It's about playing the position. For example, if your opponent has a weak pawn structure, say a couple of isolated pawns, and you have a good pawn structure with fewer islands, it pays to trade down. Your opponent will struggle to defend their pawns with fewer pieces. Your advantage may come towards the endgame when you are able to win a few pawns. If your opponent is cramped and lacks space it pays to avoid trades which might solve their problem. Your advantage may come in the middlegame when your better pieces are rewarded with a tactical hit. Play the position, gain a decisive advantage then attack.
Me personally i ask this question while playing, although i tend to defend more than attack but what's more effective? What will you win with?
Most people like to sacrifice there pieces but some like to keep them, also while im playing i keep my players to myself, never try to trade or anything. Some people think trading is wasting pieces but it could be useful. Trading can distract the opponent and you can find a bigger, better move.
what do you think works better? Defending or Attacking?
Tell me what you use most!
I hope you enjoyed this short topic bye bye