9690 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I find that now my style appears to be that of a concretistic tactician in the sense of Alekhine or Tartakower. However, being completely realistic, my style is currently marred by remarkable blunders and, truthfully, not really formed yet :)
A "blundering, not formed, concretistic tactician". .....I'm sure we all know exactly what that is.....? ......right?......?
Yes, it's complicated ;)
Yes......, ....yes, chess is complicated....... Now, can you tell us something else about chess...... like for instance, What is a "concretistic tactician." .....for that matter, What is "concretistic".
Eh, I have to go to bed now, but I kind of " borrowed" the idea from this article on chess style:
I don't know what type I am, I'd prefer to have no style but in reality, I'm just the usual blundering style of player.
Defining a chessplayer's style essentially means enumerating his preferences - narrowing down the way he prefers to play. What is left out of such list is his weaknesses. Therefore, ideally, a player shouldn't have any definite style at all - a perfect chessplayer is completely universal and simply plays (or at least attepts to play) the best plans in whatever situations. The world elite is quite close to that, you cannot find a positional or tactical player up there - these categories exist in our patzerland, a grandmaster is inevitably a positional player, and he is also an outstanding tactitian.
i'm more of an attacking player
Anybody rated under 2000 here calling themselves positional really means passive, you wouldnt know what positional chess was if it kicked you in the nuts, your style is woodpusher... I know, because thats my style too.
I don't think I have a specific style, I just take it as it comes. If I'm in the right frame of mind for chess, I play well, if not, guess what. ;)
I would like to take back my answer and say that my style is to search for the strongest move or continuation in any position. I believe that thinking of myself as a certain player, at this stage of my chess development anyway, can only serve to hinder me :)
I'm a woodpusher... No. A cat playing with the mouse
9/15/2014 - From All Angles
by j1jahjah a few minutes ago
World Chess.com Correspondence Chess Championship Match (MSC157 vs. windmill64)
by MSC157 12 minutes ago
Chess GMs mating each other...
by PhilipCavanagh 23 minutes ago
Me (~1000) vs NM (~2000)
by DesaiKeyur 26 minutes ago
True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?
by watcha 26 minutes ago
Unable to move pieces in live chess
by FBloggs 31 minutes ago
Removal from The Vikings tournament
by toadpilot 34 minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by December_TwentyNine 44 minutes ago
Drueke chess set
by 9kick9 58 minutes ago
Is 8 hours of chess enough for a 4 year old future world champion?
by DrCheckevertim 73 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!