user13565: My usual middlegame strategy is to gain an advantage, however small (say a pawn), and convert it to a win in the endgame. I position my pieces and plan attacks accordingly, so that I can grab the small advantage I need. I don't actively hunt for the opponent's king, and prefer to first gain an advantage, so I can exchange pieces and win. So the entire game grinds on.
That said, I don't (usually) miss a checkmate if my opponent blunders in the middlegame. On the whole, though, I prefer taking the game to the endgame, even if my advantage is significant (~3 points).
However, I've seen players who actively attack the king in the middlegame itself. They position their pieces in such a manner that they threaten checkmate, and seem to plan to finish up the game in the middlegame. They try to take advantage of the castled king's reduced mobility, and checkmate him. The success of this strategy depends, it seems (based on what I've seen), on both the opponent's skill level as well as on luck.
My question
I wonder, as a general rule, what should one's middlegame strategy be: should one actively hunt the opponent's king in the middlegame itself, looking for a checkmate, or try to gain an advantage which can be converted to a victory later?

user11629: There is no general rule. Most of the time, the middlegame strategy will  depend on the position you get out of the opening. Personal preferences can play a role as well, but typically players would pick an opening based on their preference for a certain middlegame (which results from that particular opening). It is not a good idea trying to force your preference onto any position you get.
For instance in open positions it is often not a good idea to force a pawn storm on the enemy king. Conversely in very wild position piece activity and attacking things might be more important than calm quiet play or perhaps winning a pawn somewhere.
Of course, if the position allows for various playing styles, you would go with whatever you are more comfortable with. However actually checkmating rarely happens in the middlegame (of games between reasonably advanced players).

user13012: To say that choosing to attack the King should be based on personal style or the nature of the position is certainly true but not all that helpful.
The best book on this is the Art of Attack in Chess by Vukojic. He explains what he calls the preconditions for the attack. Presence of attackers, absence of defenders, mobility, weak points...
These things need to be in place before the attack happens. The player with a taste for attack must first bring about the preconditions, and if they cannot do so, they should not attack. They should not even persist in trying to create the preconditions. Play through some of the games where Tal decided not to attack and ask why not. 

user15357: As Scounged mentioned, there is indeed no specific strategy that trumps all others.
However, note that the middle game can be seen as the tipping point of the game.  It is usually what defines who wins the game in the end.  My playstyle would be to balance both attack and defense, but ultimately, it is based on preference, when it comes to positions that seem equal.

user8300: There is no overarching middlegame strategy that trumps all other strategies.
Both middlegame strategies listed are viable general strategies to play for, if the position allows it. What makes a difference are your own preferences; if you love tactics and mating attacks then you should probably go for middlegame positions that allow you to play in that manner, and similarly if you like calmer positions you should probably go for positions that aren't as sharp. Objectively speaking there isn't really much saying that one playing style is better than the other.

13565: <p>My usual middlegame strategy is to gain an advantage, however small (say a pawn), and convert it to a win in the endgame. I position my pieces and plan attacks accordingly, so that I can grab the small advantage I need. I don't actively hunt for the opponent's king, and prefer to first gain an advantage, so I can exchange pieces and win. So the entire game grinds on.</p>
<p>That said, I don't (usually) miss a checkmate if my opponent blunders in the middlegame. On the whole, though, I prefer taking the game to the endgame, even if my advantage is significant (~3 points).</p>
<p>However, I've seen players who actively attack the king in the middlegame itself. They position their pieces in such a manner that they threaten checkmate, and seem to plan to finish up the game in the middlegame. They try to take advantage of the castled king's reduced mobility, and checkmate him. The success of this strategy depends, it seems (based on what I've seen), on both the opponent's skill level as well as on luck.</p>
<h3>My question</h3>
<p>I wonder, as a <strong>general rule</strong>, what should one's middlegame strategy be: should one actively <em>hunt</em> the opponent's king in the middlegame itself, looking for a checkmate, or try to gain an advantage which can be converted to a victory later?</p>
 11629: <p>There is no general rule. Most of the time, the middlegame strategy will  depend on the position you get out of the opening. Personal preferences can play a role as well, but typically players would pick an opening based on their preference for a certain middlegame (which results from that particular opening). It is not a good idea trying to force your preference onto any position you get.</p>

<p>For instance in open positions it is often not a good idea to force a pawn storm on the enemy king. Conversely in very wild position piece activity and attacking things might be more important than calm quiet play or perhaps winning a pawn somewhere.</p>

<p>Of course, if the position allows for various playing styles, you would go with whatever you are more comfortable with. However actually checkmating rarely happens in the middlegame (of games between reasonably advanced players).</p>
 13012: <p>To say that choosing to attack the King should be based on personal style or the nature of the position is certainly true but not all that helpful.</p>

<p>The best book on this is the Art of Attack in Chess by Vukojic. He explains what he calls the preconditions for the attack. Presence of attackers, absence of defenders, mobility, weak points...</p>

<p>These things need to be in place before the attack happens. The player with a taste for attack must first bring about the preconditions, and if they cannot do so, they should not attack. They should not even persist in trying to create the preconditions. Play through some of the games where Tal decided not to attack and ask why not. </p>
 15357: <p>As Scounged mentioned, there is indeed no specific strategy that trumps all others.</p>

<p>However, note that the middle game can be seen as the tipping point of the game.  It is usually what defines who wins the game in the end.  My playstyle would be to balance both attack and defense, but ultimately, it is based on preference, when it comes to positions that seem equal.</p>
 8300: <p>There is no overarching middlegame strategy that trumps all other strategies.</p>

<p>Both middlegame strategies listed are viable general strategies to play for, <strong>if the position allows it</strong>. What makes a difference are your own preferences; if you love tactics and mating attacks then you should probably go for middlegame positions that allow you to play in that manner, and similarly if you like calmer positions you should probably go for positions that aren't as sharp. Objectively speaking there isn't really much saying that one playing style is better than the other.</p>
