Answers.Body: <p><strong>Attack or defense should be an outcome</strong>, not a decision. You better don't go for all-out attack or slow attack or attack in any way <strong>without a vulnerability in opponents position</strong>, as it will end like this:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/u59cf.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/u59cf.jpg" alt="all-out attack example" /></a><br />
  <sub>(source: <a href="http://www.virginmedia.com/images/Weird-car-crash-1-431x300.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">virginmedia.com</a>)</sub></p>
  <p>Normally, you should evaluate the position, if opponents position is vulnerable you have to go for an attack, if your position is vulnerable you have to go for a defense. If you ignore the facts and decide with emotions, you lose a lot.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-20T01:32:40.047Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-02-18T08:16:21.290Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-06-17T09:59:59.497Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ferit
Answers.Body: <p>Are you actually serious about wanting to get better? To the point where you could play in tournaments for example.</p>
  
  <p>It sounds like you are not, because you don't want to learn openings. But it annoys you that other people in the company are better than you. How much does it annoy you? How much work are you prepared to put in?</p>
  
  <p>Just asking a casual question about whether it is better to attack or defend won't do it. Attacking is more fun, and that might be as far as you want to take it. Serious players will have personal styles and preferences, but will know that attacks must be prepared. That means understanding openings. If you are very serious you will need to learn them. If you are less serious you will need to know some general ideas, such as what is a weakness.</p>
  
  <p>If you have only been playing for a month you don't know yet how important chess may be to you. Play a bit more. Have fun. If you find that you do want to work a bit, you will probably be able to think of a better question.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-06-06T18:48:26.920Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-06-06T18:48:26.920Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Philip Roe
Answers.Body: <p>Aggressiveness and the initiative are important to have.  As White, you have the initiative by virtue of the first move.  Black will strive first of all to blunt this initiative to reach equality and then may try to win.  I've discovered over the years that mistakes of aggressiveness are not necessarily fatal, whereas defensive mistakes usually have more serious consequences.  Hence it may often be worth while to give up something to gain or keep the initiative, such as the cost of a pawn in an opening gambit. If you gradually can improve your position before beginning a strong attack, that can be equally successful.  A gambit isn't required.  Controlling the center is generally necessary before you can launch a successful attack against the castled king.  For that reason a premature attack by your opponent shouldn't succeed, barring any glaring mistakes on your part.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-06-06T14:29:48.307Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-06-06T14:29:48.307Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: CConero
Answers.Body: <p>To me, the game you described was an absolute beginner game. It wasn't important how the attack was conducted, all-out or slow, you opponent was just blundering pieces and even the queen! It didn't matter whether you were defending or attacking or doing nothing, you'd have won easily in any case. Your opponent had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.</p>
  
  <p>At this level, it'd be better to focus on avoid giving away pieces.</p>
  
  <p>But to answer your question, if I was to play your game, I'd go for the Scholar's Mate or launch a quick but dirty pawn-storm. I'd also move my queen out early and hope for some free pieces to capture. It'd be a diseaster against anyone experienced, but highly effective against a beginner.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-10T13:48:13.913Z
Answers.Text: When I read the question first thing came in mind was that this is a beginner game :-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Saeed Amiri
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-10T13:52:40.240Z
Answers.Text: Actually he is pretty okay. What I am wondering is, is it better to go all out of attack or just a slow attack? How I see it, is that he focused on capturing my pieces that I could defend. At the end, I can move my pieces strategically to capture his. Of course, we both aren't that good and I mostly lose against other people at my internship company (2 have been playing Chess their whole life and the other for around a year, while I've been playing Chess for like 1 month or so.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joshua Bakker
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-10T14:00:33.550Z
Answers.Text: @JoshuaBakker Very hard to give you an objective answer without more details. I think a slower attack would be better. You wait for free pieces to capture by just sitting.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-10T14:04:03.983Z
Answers.Text: Well I just want to get better and I practice pretty much. I don't want to learn openings and I want to be able to move my pieces strategically but I don't know what's the best way of playing. The guy I was playing with said in his opinion all out attack is the best way since attacking is the best defense and since he was attacking all I did was defending (so I couldn't attack) and it could've gone his way if he paid attention.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joshua Bakker
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-10T14:07:07.583Z
Answers.Text: @JoshuaBakker He might be right, attack is the best form of defence. But that doesn't mean attacking all-in would be a good idea. It's risky and requires accurate thinking. Usually, when someone just attack and attack and attack, the guy really can't play chess. You can always counter-attack him. There is no such thing you must sit and defend. Post your game if you remember the moves.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-10T14:15:31.783Z
Answers.Text: Nah, I never remember my moves. But I think I understand you. Much thanks for the explanation.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joshua Bakker
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-10T14:19:26.593Z
Answers.Text: @JoshuaBakker Mark it as an answer if it helps! This is the spirit of the site!
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-11T19:31:28.537Z
Answers.Text: @DoubleDouble Ask it as a new question
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-10T13:32:26.460Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-12-10T13:32:26.460Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Body: <p>Today I was playing chess against somebody at my internship company. He went all-out attack in the begin and I was only defending. He actually made some mistakes and lost his queen, rook and bishop. I won in the end fairly easy. We had a discussion afterwards about the 'all-out attack strategy'.</p>
  
  <p>Is it a good thing to go all out attack or should you attack slowly? What is the best way or is it different each player? I'm not really good and the other is just as 'good' as I am.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-12-10T12:55:53.680Z
Comments.Text: We would need to see the game as neither all-out attack or all-out defense always work or are always appropriate.  If your opponent _dropped_ (versus _traded_) his Q, R, and B, then there are bigger issues to solve.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-12-10T13:01:24.843Z
Comments.Text: Basically what he did was attacking me while I just defended my pieces. Almost all his pieces were at my side except for the king, some pawns and the rooks. The fact he lost his pieces was just due to not seeing I could take them. Capturing the rook was just my strategy, same with the bishop (that's why I love knights!). He had to choose between them and his queen. Unfortunately for him, he captured a piece with his queen and didn't notice my rook attacking his queen. I prefer a slow attack but he said an 'all out attack' is better. That's what I don't know whether it's really better or not.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Joshua Bakker
Tags: <strategy><attack>
Title: All-out attack or slow attack
ThreadText: # All-out attack or slow attack
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-12-10)
  
  Today I was playing chess against somebody at my internship company. He went all-out attack in the begin and I was only defending. He actually made some mistakes and lost his queen, rook and bishop. I won in the end fairly easy. We had a discussion afterwards about the 'all-out attack strategy'.
  
  Is it a good thing to go all out attack or should you attack slowly? What is the best way or is it different each player? I'm not really good and the other is just as 'good' as I am.
  
  **Tags:** strategy, attack
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: We would need to see the game as neither all-out attack or all-out defense always work or are always appropriate.  If your opponent _dropped_ (versus _traded_) his Q, R, and B, then there are bigger issues to solve.  
  > **username_0**: Basically what he did was attacking me while I just defended my pieces. Almost all his pieces were at my side except for the king, some pawns and the rooks. The fact he lost his pieces was just due to not seeing I could take them. Capturing the rook was just my strategy, same with the bishop (that's why I love knights!). He had to choose between them and his queen. Unfortunately for him, he captured a piece with his queen and didn't notice my rook attacking his queen. I prefer a slow attack but he said an 'all out attack' is better. That's what I don't know whether it's really better or not.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2015-12-10. Score: 8 | Accepted answer
  
  To me, the game you described was an absolute beginner game. It wasn't important how the attack was conducted, all-out or slow, you opponent was just blundering pieces and even the queen! It didn't matter whether you were defending or attacking or doing nothing, you'd have won easily in any case. Your opponent had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.
  
  At this level, it'd be better to focus on avoid giving away pieces.
  
  But to answer your question, if I was to play your game, I'd go for the Scholar's Mate or launch a quick but dirty pawn-storm. I'd also move my queen out early and hope for some free pieces to capture. It'd be a diseaster against anyone experienced, but highly effective against a beginner.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: When I read the question first thing came in mind was that this is a beginner game :-)  
  > **username_0**: Actually he is pretty okay. What I am wondering is, is it better to go all out of attack or just a slow attack? How I see it, is that he focused on capturing my pieces that I could defend. At the end, I can move my pieces strategically to capture his. Of course, we both aren't that good and I mostly lose against other people at my internship company (2 have been playing Chess their whole life and the other for around a year, while I've been playing Chess for like 1 month or so.  
  > **username_5**: @username_0 Very hard to give you an objective answer without more details. I think a slower attack would be better. You wait for free pieces to capture by just sitting.  
  > **username_0**: Well I just want to get better and I practice pretty much. I don't want to learn openings and I want to be able to move my pieces strategically but I don't know what's the best way of playing. The guy I was playing with said in his opinion all out attack is the best way since attacking is the best defense and since he was attacking all I did was defending (so I couldn't attack) and it could've gone his way if he paid attention.  
  > **username_5**: @username_0 He might be right, attack is the best form of defence. But that doesn't mean attacking all-in would be a good idea. It's risky and requires accurate thinking. Usually, when someone just attack and attack and attack, the guy really can't play chess. You can always counter-attack him. There is no such thing you must sit and defend. Post your game if you remember the moves.  
  > **username_0**: Nah, I never remember my moves. But I think I understand you. Much thanks for the explanation.  
  > **username_5**: @username_0 Mark it as an answer if it helps! This is the spirit of the site!  
  > **username_5**: @DoubleDouble Ask it as a new question  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2015-12-20. Score: 3
  
  **Attack or defense should be an outcome**, not a decision. You better don't go for all-out attack or slow attack or attack in any way **without a vulnerability in opponents position**, as it will end like this:
  
  [![all-out attack example](https://i.sstatic.net/u59cf.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/u59cf.jpg)  
  (source: [virginmedia.com](http://www.virginmedia.com/images/Weird-car-crash-1-431x300.jpg))
  
  Normally, you should evaluate the position, if opponents position is vulnerable you have to go for an attack, if your position is vulnerable you have to go for a defense. If you ignore the facts and decide with emotions, you lose a lot.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2017-06-06. Score: 1
  
  Are you actually serious about wanting to get better? To the point where you could play in tournaments for example.
  
  It sounds like you are not, because you don't want to learn openings. But it annoys you that other people in the company are better than you. How much does it annoy you? How much work are you prepared to put in?
  
  Just asking a casual question about whether it is better to attack or defend won't do it. Attacking is more fun, and that might be as far as you want to take it. Serious players will have personal styles and preferences, but will know that attacks must be prepared. That means understanding openings. If you are very serious you will need to learn them. If you are less serious you will need to know some general ideas, such as what is a weakness.
  
  If you have only been playing for a month you don't know yet how important chess may be to you. Play a bit more. Have fun. If you find that you do want to work a bit, you will probably be able to think of a better question.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2017-06-06. Score: 1
  
  Aggressiveness and the initiative are important to have. As White, you have the initiative by virtue of the first move. Black will strive first of all to blunt this initiative to reach equality and then may try to win. I've discovered over the years that mistakes of aggressiveness are not necessarily fatal, whereas defensive mistakes usually have more serious consequences. Hence it may often be worth while to give up something to gain or keep the initiative, such as the cost of a pawn in an opening gambit. If you gradually can improve your position before beginning a strong attack, that can be equally successful. A gambit isn't required. Controlling the center is generally necessary before you can launch a successful attack against the castled king. For that reason a premature attack by your opponent shouldn't succeed, barring any glaring mistakes on your part.
  
  
  ---
  
  