The No-Attack Strategy

As someone who plays this strat with instinct, it can get very frustrating. You'll want to attack more. In my opinion you must have balance.

If you don't see a good attack, don't force one. That I can agree with. I've definitely lost games because of trying too hard to attack.

But if you see a good attack, you should play it unless you're trying to set yourself some weird challenge whereby you avoid playing good moves on purpose.

If you can't tell the difference between a good attack and a bad one, you should start learning the difference. This helps you even if you never attack, since you still need to recognize your opponent's attacks.

Bro this is easy or maybe possible for people under 2k but probably it won't work for people above 2k because my opponents do not blunder that easily.

At the very least though, It raises the question of "what of I DONT attack? and take a more positional approach form now? I do agree as a strategy to just "wait it out" seems counterproductive. Unless there is, really, no clear attack line.

many strong players give a pawn for a big attack and to win you have to take it and get into complications otherwise the stronger player wins which is my opponent once happened against a 1700 otb i got a pawn and aggresive position and won

Seems to waste one of the important positional factors: time.

Also disagree with one of the main premises:"if you don't make blunders, the game will be a draw"

This is so rubbish! I'm tired of people liking positional chess! Tactical chess is the way to go, I protest!

This has to be the most boring way to play chess. Play chess to have a good time, not to watch a number go up.

There is a difference between passive and solid, just like there is a difference between attacking and giving away all your pieces. (Personally I like all 4 ways of playing.)

The pillars of being solid are preventing weaknesses in one's own position, focussing on the centre, and relying on strong piece positioning to force the opponent into trades. It is an incredibly difficult skill to learn for amateur players. Once you learn to appreciate this, it will stop being boring.

And by no means do being solid and attacking mutually exclude each other. If you read Nimzowitsch's "My System", you will see how a solid position can uncork a raging attack in just 2-3 moves if the opponent diverts his attention.

My piece of advice would be to stop worrying about labels, and enjoy learning the fundamentals of the game, focus on tactics first, then endgames and positional concepts later.

@Hypnotics said ^

This has to be the most boring way to play chess. Play chess to have a good time, not to watch a number go up.

Bruh, I wanna get to 3000