what type of player are you

challenge me to an online game, and we will see. 

Fine by me.  I play for fun, not for money.  If I'm having fun that's all I care about. 

And sorry for derailing the thread, lets get it back on track.

I don't enjoy losing, I enjoy the playing of the game and if I lose, that is part of the learning process.  Like I said before, I'm 16, and I have been playing for 2 or 3 weeks, and I havn't had time to read all the books and practice all the tactics.  I'm working on becoming a serious player, and I'm aware of all the work I will have to put in.

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 :)

rmurray wrote:

chessman1504 wrote:

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 ;)

Well...

Eh, I have to go to bed now, but I kind of " borrowed" the idea from this article on chess style:

http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/playstyle1.htm

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