18178 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
losing on time
by HueyWilliams 3 minutes ago
3/1/2015 - Compelled To Lose
by ederinay 3 minutes ago
Have you ever had an annoying opponent?
by eciruam 5 minutes ago
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
by HueyWilliams 5 minutes ago
do you like my 1e4 repertoire?
by babalovespecialist 10 minutes ago
Get stuck when all pieces are developed/
by JackOfAllHobbies 14 minutes ago
by baddogno 14 minutes ago
draw < lose or draw > lose?
by HueyWilliams 15 minutes ago
who would be best chess player in lord of the rings and why?
by Rkane275 17 minutes ago
by HueyWilliams 18 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!