|
|
| From | Message |
|---|
|
 New Club Member Intro |
|
Hello, I'm Joe. I am glad to be part of this club, and this is a good topic for a club, about where to become aggressive. Back in the day, I unsound aggression, in this context, cheapo tactics have become the costly mistake. But, now I think about what to do, and when aggressive, there is a plan behind it. And, I'm here to give advice especially because I've made mistakes before, so I know what it's like.
|
|
Aggressive play as depicted in books.
I was reading one example in YASSER SEIRAWAN'S aforementioned book, and he illustrates in it, that one time for possibly getting aggressive, is when you find yourself much better developed than your opponent, and its therefore TIME to take the offensive-including a possible sacrifice-to break through to the opponent's king. He uses some "forcing" moves where the opponent has no choice but to respond in a particular way. It's quite interesting. I've yet to deliberately employ a sacrifice in any of my games for that or any other purpose, so it's a real eye opener for me.
|
|
Yes, which is what I've read that you want to employ yourself and find forcing moves, but it is different then unsound aggression where you go for things like SM, Four Move Trick. In other words, threats that can easily be driven off because when your opponent finds the best response, you're often in worse shape.
|
isaiah11
29-Jan-15, 21:02
|
Hi all
I'm an aggressive player (I suppose by nature) as I favor the King's Gambit as white and the Sicilian Sveshnikov as black. The King's Gambit isn't a good opening at the GM level but it has good surprise value in amateur tournaments and I've won many games with it, both here and OTB. (I've lost some too but nearly all of the losses have proven to be interesting games.)
Agree that the best time for aggression is when you are better developed - that's the logic behind the King's Gambit - give up a pawn, or even a piece, for rapid development and an attack on the opponent's king!
I'm looking for an aggressive defense against 1 d4 but haven't found one that suits me. Have experimented with the Modern Benoni but don't like it that much. If anyone has an idea for an aggressive defense against 1 d4, I'd love to hear it!
There was a graph in a book I used to have that identified how much players valued material, with Nezhmetdinov and Tal on the far end of not valuing material and Karpov and Korchnoi on the far end of players who valued material. Speculative sacrifices are difficult for some chess players to resist and I suppose I am one of them if an advantage results from them (such as loss of the ability to castle or seriously undermining the protection in front of a castled king.)
|
|
isaiah11
Hello. Glad you joined. Hopefully we will get some interesting threads of discussion going encompassing the points and issues that you raise.
|
|
isaiah11
I notice that you say that you are an aggressive player by nature. I guess that I am not, and depend on as a good a defence that I can muster, to hopefully, gradually,wear my more offensive opponents down, and often end up in a draw. Some wins, but usually not because of aggressive offensive efforts.
Also a number of players have remarked that I should attack more. What prompted me to try and do something about it, and to set up this club, were some comments made to me by a MASTER in a recent game, wherein he told me that if would play a little more aggressively, I should be able to function at the 1600 level, because my opening competence was at that level.
Hopefully we'll get a good mix of aggressive and less aggressive players as club members to have some interesting discussions and debates, and look at and analyze game situations using diagrams,etc.
|
isaiah11
30-Jan-15, 19:36
|
@lesplay
I'd be all for that. Will try to post an ultra-aggressive game that was played by a master at some point tomorrow (if I can figure out how to do it) and highlight the point in the game where an aggressive move paid off where a more passive move wouldn't have been nearly as good.
It's a fascinating game and well worth studying.
I could also post a recent game I played which may be helpful only because I'm (obviously) familiar with the thinking behind the moves played.
|
baddeeds
30-Jan-15, 19:53
|
Deleted by baddeeds on 04-Feb-15, 08:41.
|
isaiah11
30-Jan-15, 22:42
|
Some openings...
lend themselves to aggressive play. The King's Gambit is a good example, and the Sicilian Sveshnikov and Modern Benoni have the reputation of being good counterattacking defenses. On the other side of the ledger, Philidor's Defense doesn't seem to be an aggressive defense nor does the Hungarian Defense.
But in my post before this one, I was actually talking, in the example of the master game, of highlighting aggressive play after the opening. There are a few good master games (I just thought of another I could highlight) that illustrate when choosing aggressive moves pays off and what board conditions were like when those decisions were made.
|
|
Hi i'm geoff
i'm not aggresive and some times i don't know when to be.
most times my games start with k or Q pawns then my knights, i tend to go on the defensive straight away, i don't take risks.
If anyone would like a game and give me some tips along the way that would be great.
thanks geoff
|
|
I think your approach is very good, chess-nomad. I'm similar. Actually, looking at the Aggressive V. Unsound aggression might be the way to go. The idea is to be aggressive, when there is not an obvious that could easily be driven off. Or, if you're to pull a swindle and nothing's at risk. Otherwise, you want to develop, control the center, get the K to safety, and think defensively, as opposed to, aggressively. I hope this helps.
|
isaiah11
02-Feb-15, 09:09
|
@chess-nomad
Some times being aggressive means little more than looking at options and calculating.
I think a lot of us tend to immediately think of retreating a threatened piece when we should first look at whether we have another move available that threatens a more valuable piece of our opponent's or that is a sacrifice that can lead to mate or a winning position.
I've always also believed that we should look at "impossible" moves - moves like queen or rook sacrifices that, if accepted, could lead to a winning position. Some players automatically will not sacrifice a queen or a rook for a pawn, but what if the moves that follow give you a won game? It's in these positions that the beauty of chess exists, imo
|
baddeeds
02-Feb-15, 11:00
|
Deleted by baddeeds on 04-Feb-15, 08:42.
|
isaiah11
02-Feb-15, 11:08
|
Queen and rook sacs...
Work when you have the advantage, not the disadvantage. The key to confirming that a sacrifice is correct is through calculation. But I don't think queen and rook sacs should be examined in every position. But when a player has the advantage, such as being better developed or having their opponent's king exposed or having a lot of pressure on their opponent's position when just one of their opponent's pieces is holding the position together, it's worth looking at whether a queen or rook sac will work - those are at the heart of most of the daily puzzles on GK (at least the ones in the easy category
Think I mentioned in a previous post that some players place a great deal of emphasis on material, wuch as Korchnoi and Karpov and others, like Tal and Nezhmetdinov, place little emphasis on it and are not averse to sacrifices even when they can't calculate a win. It all has to do with how much risk a chess player is willing to take. But that risk should be minimized as much as possible through calculation. In other words, don't just play a queen or rook sac for the heck of it - know what the position will look like in the moves following the sac. And if it looks good, I say, Go for it! lol
|
baddeeds
02-Feb-15, 11:10
|
Deleted by baddeeds on 04-Feb-15, 08:42.
|
|
Jkarp & Isaiah11
Thank you both for your advice i will take it on board and see how i get on.
many thanks Geoff
|
|
hello members
just became aware of this club. I hope i can contribute, though i am becoming more and more unorthodox in my play all the time. Best way to explain my approach to the game is to say i like the dramatic History of the game,and the uncanny likeness of chess to Military Tactics.My Dad was a Solder and he imparted to me the Similarities that exist between the two. On Tactical play, ; a Kings Gambit par-excel-lance;full screen youtu.be. A positional struggle;youtu.be. And a Tactical weapon;youtu.be.
|
|
Welcome to the club brigadecommander. I am interested in the youtu.be references and have started reviewing them. It's not easy to understand the motives behind many of their moves!
I was wondering if you could explain in more specific terms the likeness of chess to Military Tactics and give us some examples.
Thanks, Les (lesplay)
|
postalpeet
24-Dec-15, 22:20
|
The King's Gambit (KG) is an old friend of mine. I defeated my first master with it back in the days when I was playing over-the-board (OTB).
If you want an aggressive game from the start, the KG is the one but better suited for OTB in my opinion as correspondence has all the opening analysis to be reckoned with. Certainly stay with king's pawn openings for more open and tactical play as queen pawn games can be more easily closed down.
|
|
lesplay
any deep study of Military History clearly shows a similarity with Chess. Front lines,The Center, Flanks,road networks,interior lines of Communications, (files and ranks) advanced outposts, (a Knight entrenched on e5 for example) defensive fortifications,long range fire,(bishops or Queens on long diagonals etc). I annotated a stonewall attack once that illustrates it better ;gameknot.com. Aron Nimzowitsch book 'my System' is written in Military jargon. I am not advocating for any new approach to Chess.Just explaining some of my thoughts and methods in this welcome thread.
|
|
postalpeet
Actually i never play 1.e4. I avoid the Sicilian at all costs. But i love playing the black side against 1.e4.
|
postalpeet
26-Dec-15, 09:41
|
BC, I somewhat agree with you.
For newer players, playing 1.e4 is better to learn tactics, but in our system I advocate using 1.Nf3 getting into the Barcza system. Much easier to learn than all the blizzard of moves with 1.e4
|
|
Brigadecommander, I find that annotated game very enlightening. The thorough explanation of both the short and long term strategies behind each move, and the pros and cons of that move, are quite interesting. The tie-in to military strategies and actions ties in with me aspiring to play more aggressively and cleverly. After I finish studying the annotation, I will try to apply the same approach in actual games, other than TEAM games where I use the Barcza.
|
|
BC, regarding your annotation, I was wondering what you would recommend instead of 6......c5?
|
|
les
6...Bd6 is best (advantage black) but several other moves leave Black with a small edge also.Such as Bd7 or Be7 or h6. The Stonewall attack is no longer used in top level play.Black can easily confront it. But the whole idea of the thread was not to advocate for any particular opening, but to show an overall strategic goal, and tactical ways to achieve this goal. Advanced outposts,lines of communication,aiming and firing of weapons,all are found in military strategy. This is the way i was taught. Every player will approach the game in his or her own way.Even the great players of History were all different ;youtu.be
|
|
BC
MY biggest problem is that I always take a defensive approach. Its sort of instinctive. I used to play hockey, as a goalkeeper. Same thing in football, I was always a defensive lineman. Careerwise, accounting and auditing-careful and checking all the way.
Its hard to shrug off this mantle of cautiousness. Most chess games where I'm successful, its largely because I've beaten off all of my opponent's attacks and there is nothing left to attack me with, so I move in, or, my opponent has made a serious blunder, and left me an opening that can be exploited.
I guess that defensive tactics also apply in military situations, but how to convert that to an attacking mentality, I'm not sure?
That's why I'm trying the King's Gambit opening. I have a few games going in Chess.com to try that out.
LES
|
|
les
i am the same way.I play super cautiously.I would win more games if i played more aggressively. I draw a great many though.But i am what i am.So i select openings that fit my temperament and game.Very solid defenses for black and the same for white. I work on eliminating all errors. As such i study the games of Tigran Petrosian. Probably the most careful,defense minded Master in History.
|
postalpeet
30-Dec-15, 12:02
|
When I was a puppy, I played super cautiously as well. Then my Dad started to get me working on learning to be aggressive as he said I'm not looking for "the best move" in games because I tended to rule out possible uncomfortable moves.
Then he got me to start playing King's Gambits, all KGs every game when we played. After about a month or so of nothing but KGs, I was so comfortable playing it, I started playing them at the club and winning a lot. That got me started with "wild-eyed" games.
Later, I developed a style where I gave crazy games to folks who liked closed down, cautious play, and quiet, conservative play to those who wanted crazy. The idea was to make both types uncomfortable with the play of the game and "get into their heads" (a favorite expression of my Dad's).
|
|
peet
My Dad taught me also.He tried very hard to get me to adopt a attacking style.But i was more suited to Positional play by Nature.We should play a Kings Gambit sometime!!I will take the Black side.Un-rated,5-days per move,if you are willing. Not to prove anything, but just for fun.It would be an interesting clash of styles.
|
|
|
