Chess question solid vs. dynamic?

Question

In your opinion, is it better to have a dynamic defence or a solid defence. why

dynamic- changes to your opponent's attacks

Answer 1

A little bit of both. Have a solid defense for probably from the opening moves. By the time you get to your sixth or seventh move, start going to a dynamic defense. Be smart and cautious with your attacks. If possible, focus on attacks that disrupt your opponent's core pieces (i.e. Queen, Rooks, and Knights [because Knights in my opinion can be the hardest pieces to defend against, especially when it gets close to endgame.] )

Answer 2

A dynamic defence. If you play against someone who is aggressive (and skillful) they will exploit your stagnant and conservative approach.

Answer 3

Depends on what frustrates opponent and suits defender best.

Against a tactical guy maybe the Alekhine or Nimzo (or even an attempt at a KIA that becomes a Pirc) might be better than a highly tactical Dragon.  Against a positional guy reverse it.:)

Answer 4

Well, the best defence is also a great offence.  Dynamic defence is most likely a result of the other player leading the game, whereas solid defence alows one to build a great attack without losing tempo by adjusting to your opponent's plans.  It really depends on the games with me, because I don't have a consistent style.  You kinda have to do a bit of both in any game though.

I know I'm always frustrated when my opponent has a solid defense, because it limits my moves, so I'm probably slightly biased in favor of solid defenses, at least in the begining.