The object of this game is to score.  A major part of this, having obtained a won position, is to deny the opponent any chances at all. That is widely understood to be the mark of a master. But in general, we steer the game into channels uncomfortable to our opponent, or where his talents do not shine.  When given the advantage in material, we most usually play to deaden the opponent's activity and reach the easy ending.  When the opponent has a material advantage, or when he has fallen behind in activity, we usually try for complications and attacks.

Cowardice; bravery; the two have nothing to do with it.  It is only, "How best to score?"

I am always willing to sacrifice a pawn or even a piece; I am always ready to win a pawn or a piece; I always am willing to play for mate; I am always willing to play for an ending.  My ambition is to score, whether the half point or the whole, depending on my objective chances.  If at the end if the day, I score with "boring," simple chess, the fact remains that I score.  If I score with an attack, I score.  I score.  That's what I strive to do, from every position that I encounter on the board.  

There is no standard of good play but that, and the contrary opinion is an impediment to anyone's improvement and success at this game.  People who play into dangerous situations when they have easy wins in hand are not brave; they are fools.  People who steer into long-winded endings when they have straightforward, crushing attacks are the same.

Hello all,

Thank you Markovich, for your kind invitation to start a thread here. I accept your invitation most gratefully! That said, what is cowardice in chess?

It can be said that if after 1 e4 g6 is played, that can constitute cowardice according to the Italian school of chess. For a true swashbuckler will answer 1 e4 e5 and now on 2 Nf3 f5! the Greco (or Latvian) Counter-Gambit. No hiding, just coming and hitting with an all-out attack!

Cowardice can also mean avoiding a certain opponent for fear of losing. The best examples are Morphy-Staunton, Alekhine-Capablanca and Fischer-Karpov.  By way of explanation, it should be noted that Staunton never gave a match to Morphy; Alekhine avoided giving a rematch to Capablanca; and Karpov never played Fischer. 

I have had some people avoid playing me for a variety of silly excuses. These ranged from the idiotic "I play better than you" to downright withdrawing from the tournament where I played. Now, if these people wanted to show they are better, why not play the tournament game? Or is it just their balloon-sized ego?

Cowardice means avoiding accepting gambits, preferring, dry, uninteresting positional garbage. Bravery means means accepting a gambit, not shying away from a challenge.

Courage  is the difference between a brave man and a lily-colored, yellow, yellow, yellow coward!