Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

The No-Attack Strategy

<Comment deleted by user>

The No Attack Strategy is awesome. I kinda made this realization myself recently. My winrate has gone up since I decided to make chess a game of "Go 20 moves without blundering, and you win". Almost without fail. Just don't a hang a piece and you win, maybe draw.

There were a couple good quotes in your write up that helped make it click more though. I like viewing it as really upping the skill expression.

The No Attack Strategy is awesome. I kinda made this realization myself recently. My winrate has gone up since I decided to make chess a game of "Go 20 moves without blundering, and you win". Almost without fail. Just don't a hang a piece and you win, maybe draw. There were a couple good quotes in your write up that helped make it click more though. I like viewing it as really upping the skill expression.

This seems like a weird strategy for me because like you I always go on the offensive position if I am white or black. Most of the people I go against IRL blunder a lot so I think I will stick to the offensive strategy for IRL games but I will try this way if playing chess or on linchess!

This seems like a weird strategy for me because like you I always go on the offensive position if I am white or black. Most of the people I go against IRL blunder a lot so I think I will stick to the offensive strategy for IRL games but I will try this way if playing chess or on linchess!

If your opponent wants to reduce randomness, it's very simple to add randomness.

If your opponent wants to reduce randomness, it's very simple to add randomness.

I strongly advise against doing this, as it can actually hold back your improvement in chess. As a challenge, it sounds interesting, but realistically it’s not very practical.

If you find yourself blundering in winning positions because of overly reckless attacking, a better approach is to work on your tactical skills by solving puzzles and carefully reviewing your losses, rather than trying to avoid the problem.

Anyways, have a good day!

I strongly advise against doing this, as it can actually hold back your improvement in chess. As a challenge, it sounds interesting, but realistically it’s not very practical. If you find yourself blundering in winning positions because of overly reckless attacking, a better approach is to work on your tactical skills by solving puzzles and carefully reviewing your losses, rather than trying to avoid the problem. Anyways, have a good day!

Maybe this is a valid strategy for really weak players. I am only around 1900 FIDE but I play as sharp as possible, especially in OTB - Potugese Gambit, Vienna Gambit, KIA, GP-Attack. I played a FM and some other 2100 opponents some weeks ago in a blitz tourney and I do not think that you will be able to get a win against strong opponents. No risk no fun.

Maybe this is a valid strategy for really weak players. I am only around 1900 FIDE but I play as sharp as possible, especially in OTB - Potugese Gambit, Vienna Gambit, KIA, GP-Attack. I played a FM and some other 2100 opponents some weeks ago in a blitz tourney and I do not think that you will be able to get a win against strong opponents. No risk no fun.

The strategy works, Specially under 2000 ELO. I find I gravitate to this strategy quite naturaly with openings like the English and sometimes the London, where I pay more attention to the position and less to pushing forward. But I have more trouble wehn playing with Black because I keep trying to regain the initiative. There is a difference Between "no attack" and "continuosly defend" although I guess there are more chances the opponent will blunder if they overplay their attack. Something for me to consider...

The strategy works, Specially under 2000 ELO. I find I gravitate to this strategy quite naturaly with openings like the English and sometimes the London, where I pay more attention to the position and less to pushing forward. But I have more trouble wehn playing with Black because I keep trying to regain the initiative. There is a difference Between "no attack" and "continuosly defend" although I guess there are more chances the opponent will blunder if they overplay their attack. Something for me to consider...

@duongvuanh said ^

I strongly advise against doing this, as it can actually hold back your improvement in chess. As a challenge, it sounds interesting, but realistically it’s not very practical.

If you find yourself blundering in winning positions because of overly reckless attacking, a better approach is to work on your tactical skills by solving puzzles and carefully reviewing your losses, rather than trying to avoid the problem.

Anyways, have a good day!

Exactly!

@duongvuanh said [^](/forum/redirect/post/ApLEJ4x1) > I strongly advise against doing this, as it can actually hold back your improvement in chess. As a challenge, it sounds interesting, but realistically it’s not very practical. > > If you find yourself blundering in winning positions because of overly reckless attacking, a better approach is to work on your tactical skills by solving puzzles and carefully reviewing your losses, rather than trying to avoid the problem. > > Anyways, have a good day! Exactly!

I agree with other comments, not only does this strategy not sound fun at all, it can really hinder your chess improvement. You should always play as challenging as possible for your opponent and strive to find critical moves. Mistakes only help you learn, if you correctly analyse your games. Avoiding mistakes avoids learning basically.

I agree with other comments, not only does this strategy not sound fun at all, it can really hinder your chess improvement. You should always play as challenging as possible for your opponent and strive to find critical moves. Mistakes only help you learn, if you correctly analyse your games. Avoiding mistakes avoids learning basically.