Hello Fadedsun and others,
I can understand your question. I hope you find your way.

Your question made me wonder if I should perhaps raise a similar question but to the opposite: "should I play more passively?"

Recently, on 2 different occasions, one real life game, and one online game, my opponent (better than me) said afterwards that I played agressively.
I was baffled. I thought my playing style in those games was friendly and easy-going. No attacks or experiments.
I won both games. Both other players were several stones stronger than me (around 8k).

What do you think, would this make an interesting thread?

Hi sybob,

Have your game(s) reviewed. Example: post your game here.

Most likely, the biggest problems lie in the basics.

Verrrrrry interesting.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Sure.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Really? I do the reverse

Roughly speaking, playing too passively is a general mistake of style. Playing too aggressively can be seen in terms of mistakes of technique or direction or timing. "Black should attack White's group, but by enclosing it not eye-stealing." "Black is chasing White's group into the framework, rather than building up the framework." "Black should first build up some strength, aiming to attack that group somewhat later". And so on.

I'm reluctant to say people are "too aggressive" as such.

I have I suppose a personal categorisation of "orthodox mistakes": types of errors that are standard enough, and for which standard advice can be given. The comments above relate to "orthodox" errors in attacking. Attacking is, anyway, basically more straightforward than defending, which tends to require both resourcefulness and finesse (live tidily).

Passivity can manifest itself in small plays, endgame started too early, overconcentration, "automatic" answers, reluctance to play tenuki, undervaluation of sente, ignoring the opponent's weak groups, ... really it has many facets. Curing any one of these by conceptual development is challenging.

Mwa, not really. Just having a good day, and opponents not being as sharp as they could.
So, I consider it lucky wins. Made me wonder though.

Well, as the great bridge writer, Victor Mollo, pointed out, good players are lucky. Meaning both that they take advantage of their opportunities, and also that they create them. A certain aggressiveness creates opportunities.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.