"The player with advantage must attack" - Wilhem Steinitz was famous for making rules. Some became the foundation of how the game is played. Others couldn't even be followed successfully by Steinitz himself. One of his most famous rules -which is known as Steinitz's Law- is based on the premise that sound attacks stem from positional advantages. Your attack cannot succeed if you don't have an edge to justify it, he said. This was brilliant and original. It replaced the older view that attacks succeeded or failed because of the attacker's genius or lack of it. Steinitz could have stopped there. But he added a guide to action: The player who obtains that edge not only has the right but the obligation to attack. If he doesn't, his advantage is bound to evaporate.
[Source: A. Soltis, The Wisest Things Ever Said About Chess]
Yes, Steinitz love making rules. Now some GMs like making rules too. But I don't think "The player with advantage must attack" it right. You can make your advantage larger in two ways: 1. Attacking 2.Position play style, where you make your pieses' place better and better every move! -
on Sept. 15, 2019, 10 a.m.
Your idea is understandable, but I think also that it is not just simply a generic rule in pursuit of an invisible initiative, but a natural law of the game, that's why it strictly says that only the player with the advantage can attack, which implies that attack can only be possible with a positional justification to unfold the active potential of a player's coordinated pieces, it doesn't mean 'to get advantage you must attack', however I agree that improving the pieces activity is a valid approach to acquire an advantage, but what is to be done when a player's pieces are already better than his opponent's pieces? keep improving them? It would be uninspiring, if not mediocre to say the least, to expect mistakes from the opponent to get an advantage while just optimizing pieces, so the quest for initiative with better pieces must be carried out through the principle of attack, as Lasker once stated 'position play complements combination [attacking] play', which is a preface to Steinitz's idea, but in general I think your criterion is alright in reference to positional style. Regards. -
on Sept. 15, 2019, 11:35 a.m.
Yes, I am love positional playing more than attacking. Attacking includes sacfrices, and some of them can be incorrect. -
on Sept. 17, 2019, 6:19 p.m.
True, but however chess is played it's about the fun after all -
on Sept. 18, 2019, 8:47 a.m.