Defence and Counter-Attack [antikvár]

Attack or Defence? General thoughts and a short historical review Should we play attacking or defensive chess? Which is the more elegant, which the more purposeful? Tournament players ponder over these and similar questions just as much as ordinary chess enthusiasts. The answer depends to a certain extent on temperament, individual preference, talent and many other factors. It would seem, however, fairly certain that for all the admiration aroused by the spectacular feat of defence, the hearts of most chess players beat fastest when the names of the great attacking players, such as Anderssen, Morphy, Alekhine, Keres, Bronstein or Tal, are mentioned. The rich imagination of these great masters, their daring combinations, and spectacular sacrifices, have captivated contemporaries andsucceeding generations. Nimzowitsch believed that great defensive players were numerically in a minority. Of the names mentioned by him, only Steinitz and Lasker were widely known, whilst the rest (Burn, Duras and others) are only remembered by a handful of experts. It is also characteristic that when a great attacker emerges (for instance grandmaster Tal) people are so impressed by the superiority that they tend to talk of a new style. But this is a subjective conclusion. It was Tal himself who referred to those players, contemporary and past, who had influenced him and who played in a style similar to his own. While popular opinion unequivocally prefers the attacldng game, when it comes to aesthetic effect it must be remembered that attack is futile without good defence. Attack and defence are strategically related aspects of the game of chess, particularly in the middle game, and they are inseparably linked. Balancing attack with defence is, of course, not only done for aesthetic reasons. It is also done as a response to such questions as which is more to the point, which is more useful, which is easier, or which is more diflcult? Looked at from this angle, the answer depends perhaps even more on the player's temperament, flair and taste. Certainly, the majority would opt for attack. "We attack because we like to, we defend because we have to," wrote the late American chess writer, Fred Reinfeld, in his book dedicated to defence. As a rule, we do what we like better than what we are compelled to do. "No game has ever been won by defence alone," add the protagonists of attack. Defence, the repulsion of an attack, generally only leads to restoration of the balance. Unless defence is followed by counter-attack, the game will end in a draw. Of course, any player is justly proud of achieving a well-fought draw, and half a point in competition chess is better than none at all. Even so, most chess players regard defence, to a certain extent, as passive, since it is the attacker who determines the course of the game and the direction of events, in both the short and long term. The defender will have to adjust his moves, plans and methods according to what the attacker does. The latter seems free to choose between a number of different possibilities, while the defender's game is dictated to him. For this reason the attacker is psychologically in a more favourable situ- 1