Wrestling against yourself, who you are vs. what you want to be.
Who I am naturally: although I don't want to admit it, probably a positional player who prefers quiet and risk-free positions.
Who I want to be: tactical calculating machine and combinational genius.
Can someone possibly be dissatisfied with who they naturally are?
People who are naturally weak can say enough is enough and make a conscious effort to work out and be strong, or people who are fat can decide to make a conscious effort to exercise and become a fitness guru.
However, going against your own natural tendency or personality is a very hard thing to do.
Now, I'm not necessarily dissatisfied with my natural "style".
After all, whether you win in an endgame in move 90 or win in a checkmating attack in move 19, it's all the same: a win = 1 point.
There is no style point in chess... not anything tangible anyways.
However, I want to be a tactician and an attacker, and this automatically puts me at the disadvantage of having to fight against your own self as well as your opponent.
So far, I have embraced it, and I think it is worth the fight, but nevertheless, I lose against myself sometimes and let my natural personality get the better of me during the game.
Ever since I wrote my last blog, I played only 7 games. (wow, right? that's not a lot I know.)
But I have enjoyed going over them in detail and annotating them.
I honestly think I learned more about myself by going over those 7 games than I did the past several months playing hundreds of blitz games, none of which I reviewed.
I learned about my tendencies, my thinking process, and my struggles as a player, where/when I play actively and where/when I chicken out.
I will constantly refine my attacking skills and tactics, and I will continually challenge myself to resist the inner urge to play it safe.
I cannot be afraid of losing the nothing that I have.