How to create an attack

@kindaspongey said in #19:

So, after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 5 O-O Bg4 6 h3 h5 7 hxg4 hxg4 8 Nxe5, it would be a mistake to play 8...Qh4 ?

No the mistake would have been around hxg4, or I would even say allowing this whole idea with giving up the bishop and castling this early but what does this have to do with the topic? It isnt about how to blunder into an attack.

So 8...Qh4 would not have been a mistake, and it is perhaps possible for a violent attack to succeed without controlling at least two of the squares (e4, d4, e5, d5)?

Guys I want some people to join my team https://lichess.org/team/global-chess-uprising
FIRST FEW MEMBERS CAN BECOME TEAM LEADERS AND CAN GET SALARY FROM ME

I have a question...please go easy on me. I read about a game in Andrew Soltis' "Pawn Structure Chess." In the game in question, neither side made any mistakes, according to the notation. It was a game between Kasparov and Karpov...Kasparov had White. He made what was considered a brilliant move and eventually Black resigned. Is a failure to prevent a brilliant move considered a mistake? I was thinking that maybe Kasparov found a move which had not been played before.

I don't know if I still own the book. I will look for it, so I can find the game. I might need to find a used copy somewhere...

after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 5 O-O Bg4 6 h3 h5 7 hxg4 hxg4 8 Nxe5
7 hxg4? is a mistake 7 d3 is fine

"neither side made any mistakes" * Then the position is drawn

"It was a game between Kasparov and Karpov...Kasparov had White." * Which game, they played so many...

"Is a failure to prevent a brilliant move considered a mistake?"

• A move that changes the position to a lost position is a mistake.
  "Brilliant" is just an esthetical notion.

@tpr said in #8:

No violent attack can succeed without controlling at least two of these squares (e4, d4, e5, d5) , and possibly three. - Capablanca
@CagnusMarlsen92 said in #9:
... Wow! hearing this for the first time but makes sense. Probably many exceptions to the rule right?: I mean you can have some pretty strong attacks e.g. from an open h-file or 7th/backrank? Just a noob-player so i'm trying to understand this
@tpr said in #25:
after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 5 O-O Bg4 6 h3 h5 7 hxg4 hxg4 8 Nxe5
7 hxg4? is a mistake 7 d3 is fine
So, after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 5 O-O Bg4 6 h3 h5 7 hxg4 hxg4 8 Nxe5, 8...Qh4 would not have been a mistake, and it is perhaps possible for a violent attack to succeed without controlling at least two of the squares (e4, d4, e5, d5)?

@kindaspongey said in #22:

So 8...Qh4 would not have been a mistake, and it is perhaps possible for a violent attack to succeed without controlling at least two of the squares (e4, d4, e5, d5)?

Of course it is possible but in a theoretical discussion on such a general topic blundering shouldnt be made into a rule or antyhing. Just because the scholars mate works to beginners it doesnt mean we should take it seriously as a way to "create an attack"
I mean everything is possible but what does this have to do with anything that has been discussed? When studying anything or trying to learn do you just assume your opponents will just blunder or play badly?

@DStamateleios said in #28:

... in a theoretical discussion on such a general topic blundering shouldnt be made into a rule or antyhing. Just because the scholars mate works to beginners it doesnt mean we should take it seriously as a way to "create an attack" ... When studying anything or trying to learn do you just assume your opponents will just blunder or play badly?
I was not making blundering into a rule. I was not encouraging anyone to take seriously any particular way to create an attack (although, as it happens, I believe that 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 5 O-O Bg4 6 h3 h5 is considered seriously in books). I was not suggesting that anyone assume that an opponent will just blunder or play badly.
@DStamateleios said in #28:
... what does this have to do with anything that has been discussed? ...
I was attempting to address the issue raised by CagnusMarlsen92 in #9 about exceptions.

"this whole idea with giving up the bishop and castling this early"

• Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Caruana have all played 4 Bxc6.
  Here is a crisp attack with the delayed exchange 6 Bxc6.
  
  https://lichess.org/GlyYWKhO#11