Should you focus more on your attacks or more defending?

I believe most people would agree the focusing solely on defense, in a game of Chess, might be considered a recipe for losing ... I guess there are many ways of looking at it, but overall it would seem that if you are playing very defensively and just looking at how to protect some pieces for the next 2 or 3 moves, such a strategy may be strong in many ways, but doesn't provide much of anything for win.

I am also rather certain that most people would agree that at least some part of ones play should be focused on a win.

Overall this comment is intended to potentially wake a few people up, in case they happen to be mostly playing to avoid losing some piece in the next couple turns or tend to mostly just focus on protecting their pieces .... it may be that you are overlooking the epic two move checkmate hehe

Being awesome is ok too! *high five* 🙏

Have fun

Its depends on your position I think. You're forced to defend when the evaluation bar is not in your favor. I think generally what happens is that there is a first initial mistake in development and a player notices it and tries to exploit it, to hinder development. Thats where threats emerge from. If you fall behind you are forced to defend, or try to swindle. I think it depends on the position and the accuracy of the player. I will probably notice weakness a lower rated player doesnt, and chance on being right to exploit a lack of development, I think this is how it works. 

Or a bad pawn chain for example, because of pattern recognition i know its bad so ill attack it. 

You should be ready to defend if you know you have messed up, its an important lesson not be on forward mode the entire time if you miscalculate something and try to cut your losses

In chess you want to have somthing called "the initiative" that means that your opponents need to rrespond to YOUR moves and not YOU responding to your opponent's moves. between attacking and defending I would start a game with an attack unless my opponent is down in material by a bit or plays a gambit.

Not always- you can somtimes set up a trap for prepetual check if you get the chance.

Yes, I agree that much of how you describe it is how I play also

1) Generally, the first 2 or 3 moves for me are some sort of 'standard' type opening, but maybe I will play around a little for fun

and then

2) Normally I tend to become more offensive and try to look for weaknesses in the other players game.  Many times I just have to select from one or two moves that appear good.

and then

3) Sometimes the games swing back and forth a bit, but I have noticed many times when I felt the game was going bad and would tend to get locked up and just be focused on how to protect my pieces.

My guess is that there are still some "Grandmaster" type moves that can win a losing game ... but maybe sometimes I don't notice them because I am hardly even looking.

Yes, I agree with you that the defending mindset tends to occur shortly after seeing a mistake.  It might still be possible to win if you find something that looks a bit wild, but possible ...

(Especially when the defensive move was to just try to protect a pawn is probably lost anyway hehe   )

Good luck and thanks for the replies "TheNameofNames"

@1

"focusing solely on defense, in a game of Chess, might be considered a recipe for losing"
++ No, on the contrary. Focussing on defense is a recipe for not losing. Focussing on attack is a recipe for losing.

"such a strategy may be strong in many ways, but doesn't provide much of anything for win."
++ You can only win if your opponent makes a mistake. Luring him into attacking is one way to provoke him to make such a mistake.

"part of ones play should be focused on a win" ++ After your opponent has made a mistake, you have to convert your advantage he handed to you into a win.

"focus on protecting their pieces" ++ Overprotection is an important strategy, per Nimzovich

"overlooking the epic two move checkmate" ++ Protecting your king is most important.

Defending is actually bad. If your opponent castle king side and you also, and he starts moving his castle side pawn to attack you, you should attack immediately on the other side of the board. It's a distraction. 

My chess philosophy is to play  zugzwang, for the opponent, the only problem is what I'm having, one thing is to understand chess, the other thing is to apply it. But we will get there

I'm a defensive persona that considers both options in any position.  To play best moves you've got to do both but my natural instinct is to play defense 1st.  If I purely attack it can get really double edged & I'm not as comfortable with that.  If all I do is play defense I'll probably miss opportunities.  It's good to find balance between, study tactics & the endgame.  If you follow the principles of developing your pieces, taking the center & king safety you'll be able to defend & attack.

I can't see the evaluation bar during a game.  I thought nobody could, that it could only be seen in post-game analysis.

Is there a way to see it during live chess?

We need to use preventive thinking before each move, but we should not make any move for preventing. Only necessary minimum in defense. 

The guy just admits he is a cheater, he doesn't even realize it because he thinks it's normal to cheat and everybody is doing it. That is Carslen-Hans question. Ginger GM tries to play 900-1100 Blitz players he lost 2 times, how do we feel who wants to play the game but are not GM-s. I'm getting destroyed in an endgame with 1100 ELO rated players in blitz when they have a piece down. How its possible that 1100 rated players can play perfect endgames? I'm 10 seconds. They have 2 and half minutes and they are playing a perfect game, with 2 sec to think Or Im so stupid I cant work under the pressure of time or Im playing the machine

I see.  Well, this is very discouraging to read and to know.  I guess I am too inexperienced to understand what I was reading.  Feels bad, man. 🙁

Hvala ti što si mi sve objasnio.

@13

"We need to use preventive thinking before each move" ++ Yes

"we should not make any move for preventing"
++ Wrong. 'The essense of positional play is prophylaxis' - Nimzovich

"Only necessary minimum in defense" ++ Wrong. It is an advantage to protect all weak and strong points one time more than they are attacked. Then all the defenders are free to move. This is overprotection, as Nimzovich taught.

I think we can combine almost all ideas if we do not reject and don't attach. It seems like a contradiction, but if we will take different examples, and different situations, we will see very clearly, we can apply all of that. I didn't create anything new, I prefer to copy thinking from people who play much better than me 

I wasnt implying i was cheating, I was just saying that if you had the value of the position. I also posited that some people dont assess their position correctly. I dont fkn cheat. I was trying to say the objective value of the position, does that make sense. I was simply trying to explain, that a position is bad and both you and analysis agree. I dont know why i talk like that tbh this happens everytime where people get all paranoid. 

It has nothing to do with seeing the eval bar, i just meant in post game if you looked at it and saw it was bad and then went yup i should have just defended instead of attack, this is what i was alluding to. If i cheated i wouldnt be stuck at the same rating in daily as i am in rapid. People need to realize theres no place for paranoia, that if mc loses one game it doesnt mean somehow now everyone is cheating and the world is falling apart lol jesus

This sums it up, the greatest player arguably even agrees with a lowly peasant such as myself. If you have a positional advantage you should be attacking not defending thats not how chess works

Consolidation is a different matter, defending is what you do when you are being pressed and you have made an error