- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

How to create an attack

#31

Offhand---- and without coffee this morning---
Should not attack without more attackers than defenders (where piece power is used to count)
Minimally you need 3 pieces: 1 to sac to open lines and 2 to mate.
Usually to attack you need a stable center ad space behind it to move pieces.
One way to open lines is with pawn breaks: so if black has a pawn on h4, white plays g4-g5. If on g6 white plays h4 h5 or f4 f5
The Kasparov strategy is sometimes useful: if you get a free move, move a piece closer to their king-e.g.lift a rook.
opposite side castling usually leads to a pawn storm where faster is winner.
Weak squares and weak colors around king gives a highway for attackers. Use it.
Sometimes you have to exchange a piece first to make a weak color complex or square.
Attacking: you can exchange defenders but try to keep attackers on the board.
Sometimes you make a threat then another then another.
Sometimes you try to make the possibility of threats and build more until you can make a double threat.
.
Of course,...
...... ''It all depends on the position!'' - Boris Spassky

Offhand---- and without coffee this morning--- Should not attack without more attackers than defenders (where piece power is used to count) Minimally you need 3 pieces: 1 to sac to open lines and 2 to mate. Usually to attack you need a stable center ad space behind it to move pieces. One way to open lines is with pawn breaks: so if black has a pawn on h4, white plays g4-g5. If on g6 white plays h4 h5 or f4 f5 The Kasparov strategy is sometimes useful: if you get a free move, move a piece closer to their king-e.g.lift a rook. opposite side castling usually leads to a pawn storm where faster is winner. Weak squares and weak colors around king gives a highway for attackers. Use it. Sometimes you have to exchange a piece first to make a weak color complex or square. Attacking: you can exchange defenders but try to keep attackers on the board. Sometimes you make a threat then another then another. Sometimes you try to make the possibility of threats and build more until you can make a double threat. . Of course,... ...... ''It all depends on the position!'' - Boris Spassky
#33

@kindaspongey said in #29:

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.

The fact that something is a topic of a book doesnt mean it is also "objectively good". I mean of course when you study an opening you test all possible variations and especially the ones where your opponent goes wrong. But this doesnt mean you created an attack. In the line that you gave I would say that white created the attack on himself more than black had anything to do with it. Without h3 and hxg4 there is no attack. This is what I meant it is another thing to attack someone because they did something wrong and it is another to "create an attack" by forcing weaknesses and taking space and removing defenders etc.
This was my objection
I was attempting to address the issue raised by CagnusMarlsen92 in #9 about exceptions.

As for here I would say my point still stands that this is no good example of an exception because it mainly relies on white playing "wrong" rather than black doing something right.

@kindaspongey said in #29: > 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. > The fact that something is a topic of a book doesnt mean it is also "objectively good". I mean of course when you study an opening you test all possible variations and especially the ones where your opponent goes wrong. But this doesnt mean you created an attack. In the line that you gave I would say that white created the attack on himself more than black had anything to do with it. Without h3 and hxg4 there is no attack. This is what I meant it is another thing to attack someone because they did something wrong and it is another to "create an attack" by forcing weaknesses and taking space and removing defenders etc. This was my objection > I was attempting to address the issue raised by CagnusMarlsen92 in #9 about exceptions. > As for here I would say my point still stands that this is no good example of an exception because it mainly relies on white playing "wrong" rather than black doing something right.
#35

@DStamateleios said in #28:

... Just because the scholars mate works to beginners it doesnt mean we should take it seriously as a way to "create an attack" ...
@kindaspongey said in #29:
... 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). ...
@DStamateleios said in #33:
... The fact that something is a topic of a book doesnt mean it is also "objectively good". ...
As far as I can tell, your #33 reference to "objectively good" is the first appearance of that phrase in this discussion. My statement (in what was intended as an incidental remark) was 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. Had I anticipated that this would attract your further attention, I suppose that I might have mentioned that some of the books are IM John Shaw's Starting Out: the Ruy Lopez, GM Nick de Firmian's Modern Chess Openings 15, GM Paul van der Sterrren's Fundamental Chess Openings, and GM John Emms' First Steps: 1 e4 e5 (where one can find the line with "5...Bg4!" and "6...h5!").
"... This is an amazing idea (and also the main line!). ..."
I believe that GM John Emms had it in mind to indicate the 2018 main line after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 5 O-O.
@DStamateleios said in #33:
... when you study an opening you test all possible variations and especially the ones where your opponent goes wrong. But this doesnt mean you created an attack. ...
I did not say that 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 5 O-O Bg4 6 h3 h5 created an attack.

@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
@kindaspongey said in #22:
... [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)?
@DStamateleios said in #28:
... what does this have to do with anything that has been discussed? ...
@kindaspongey said in #29:
... I was attempting to address the issue raised by CagnusMarlsen92 in #9 about exceptions.
@DStamateleios said in #33:
... this is no good example of an exception because ...
I see no reason to believe that CagnusMarlsen92 was intending to ask about "good" exceptions according to some standard set by DStamateleios or tpr.
8...Qh4 simply seems to me to be an example of a violent attack that succeeds without controlling at least two of the squares (e4, d4, e5, d5).

By the way, @purna0001000 said in #34:

hi i love this platform
It is not a good idea to repeatedly make comments like this in a discussion. As I understand it, once a discussion reaches the 50-contribution limit, it is automatically condemned by the system to sink into oblivion.

@DStamateleios said in #28: > ... Just because the scholars mate works to beginners it doesnt mean we should take it seriously as a way to "create an attack" ... @kindaspongey said in #29: > ... 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). ... @DStamateleios said in #33: > ... The fact that something is a topic of a book doesnt mean it is also "objectively good". ... As far as I can tell, your #33 reference to "objectively good" is the first appearance of that phrase in this discussion. My statement (in what was intended as an incidental remark) was 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. Had I anticipated that this would attract your further attention, I suppose that I might have mentioned that some of the books are IM John Shaw's Starting Out: the Ruy Lopez, GM Nick de Firmian's Modern Chess Openings 15, GM Paul van der Sterrren's Fundamental Chess Openings, and GM John Emms' First Steps: 1 e4 e5 (where one can find the line with "5...Bg4!" and "6...h5!"). "... This is an amazing idea (and also the main line!). ..." I believe that GM John Emms had it in mind to indicate the 2018 main line after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 5 O-O. @DStamateleios said in #33: > ... when you study an opening you test all possible variations and especially the ones where your opponent goes wrong. But this doesnt mean you created an attack. ... I did not say that 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 5 O-O Bg4 6 h3 h5 created an attack. @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 @kindaspongey said in #22: > ... [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)? @DStamateleios said in #28: > ... what does this have to do with anything that has been discussed? ... @kindaspongey said in #29: > ... I was attempting to address the issue raised by CagnusMarlsen92 in #9 about exceptions. @DStamateleios said in #33: > ... this is no good example of an exception because ... I see no reason to believe that CagnusMarlsen92 was intending to ask about "good" exceptions according to some standard set by DStamateleios or tpr. 8...Qh4 simply seems to me to be an example of a violent attack that succeeds without controlling at least two of the squares (e4, d4, e5, d5). By the way, @purna0001000 said in #34: > hi i love this platform It is not a good idea to repeatedly make comments like this in a discussion. As I understand it, once a discussion reaches the 50-contribution limit, it is automatically condemned by the system to sink into oblivion.
#36

I see we dont understand each other apparently. Have a nice day and good luck on the boards online and offline!

I see we dont understand each other apparently. Have a nice day and good luck on the boards online and offline!
#39

You are correct because pushing pawns Is a good mode ti checkmate the opponent .
Infact two years ago i won because i pushed all my pawns

You are correct because pushing pawns Is a good mode ti checkmate the opponent . Infact two years ago i won because i pushed all my pawns

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.