i play chess like mikhail tal what are good openings for me?

Meaningful only to sheeple.

As for the rest, I see it's just the usual plowing on with the same stuff without responding to any points.

I have beaten 2400s and 2500s in tournament play and have always lost to 2600s but have analyzed with them and know what you are talking about . I have 2 draws with 2600s in rapid events , Oleg Korneev and Julio Granda Zuniga .  A 2600 GM friend of mine ( Kevin Spraggett ) only broke 2600 in his 50s and couldnt do it in the mid 80s when he was a Candidate for the WC and played 2 Candidates matches , winning one and losing the second . His peak at that time was 2580 . I asked him so you think you play better chess after age 50 than you did in the prime of your life ? He laughed and said ofcourse he was playing better chess when he was a Candidate !  I said but what about the rating difference ?  You only break 2600 after age 50 !  He explained with 2 words : rating inflation .  

Sorry , I may have missed something ?  What would you like me to respond to ? 

In another thread, Reb uses Anand's performance at Gibraltar as proof that top players' ratings are inflated and they'd lose rating points if they played in open tournaments. 

Well, Carlsen played in Qatar, an open tournament, and gained ratings. Naka and MVL played in the same Gibraltar tournament where Anand failed. They were seeded first and second. They ended up tied for first, with Naka winning the tournament in a tie break match. They both ended up gaining rating points at Gibraltar.

Ivanchuk generally gains rating points in open tournaments and gives them back in closed tournaments. Yes, he's won some of the strongest closed tournaments in history, but he's also lost some in terrible fashion (just look at the last Candidates' tournament he played in as an example). Ivanchuk is an inconsistent, but brilliant player whose rating reflects that inconsistency. 

Reb uses a myth about open tournaments to demonstrate that ratings are inflated. When was the last open tournament that Fischer played?

Posts 38 and 43.

guys sorry for comparing myself to tal,but i took the chess personality test and the style in witch i play is like tal 

Reb is going back to Kevin Spraggett's comments again. Take a close look at Spraggett's rating gain. It was an abberration that he wasn't able to maintain. He had a legitimate hot streak that briefly boosted his rating, then it came back down again. 

Chad, go check out the book I mentioned in the first page. It's great to try to emulate someone like Tal! He was a strong advocate of encouraging players to improve their chess. Tal has inspired many a great master, including Garry Kasparov!

I suppose you refer mainly to technology , data bases and chess playing engines and the use of the internet here ? Yes , these have all had a huge impact on chess . I think there has been a significant development in the speed with which promising players now reach master level and even the elite level ... they are doing it younger and younger it seems .  Does this mean the top 10 today are significantly stronger than say the top 10 from Fischer's time ? I dont think so and those who argue otherwise can only point to ratings to make their case . Spassky never broke 2700 , his peak being 2680 I believe .  Does that mean that all players today rated over 2700 ( over 40 of them I believe ! ) are better than Spassky was at his peak ? I don't believe that to be the case but many people do . Ratings are not infallible and were never meant to be . 

Not "believing" in rating inflation is like not believing in gravity. Your beliefs contradict facts. Karpov only peaked at 2780. I doubt he would lose to all these players that peaked in the 2800s besides Magnus.

Interesting how Kramnik, Anand, Ivanchuk, Topalov all peaked so late! They must have only hit their prime when most players are already on the downslope.

The advent of strong computers to help with analysis really changed things dramatically. Kramnik's peak FIDE rating was in 2013 at 2811. He was close to that in 2001 after his victory over Kasparov, with 2809. 

Kramnik has been consistently near 2800 most of his career. I don't see that he peaked late. 

Kramnik who couldnt win a game against Shirov who couldnt win a game against Kasparov who coldnt win a game against Kramnik ... 

Btw, that brings up another ugly truth about ratings that is rarely mentioned when discussing Fischer: Match play often results in outlier performance ratings. If one side gets a large lead, the other starts taking huge risks and could end up getting blown away. This happens quite often, as in the Tal-Spassky 1965 match. Spassky ended up winning the last three games in a row against Tal, in part due to Tal's deteriorating health and in part due to the circumstances in the match. 

The Larsen-Fischer match was an extreme example of this. Larsen didn't try to make the score respectable, he tried to win at all costs. And the cost was 6-0 against him.

If there's any inflation of ratings at all, it was in Fischer's match play results!

Taimanov and Petrosian got the same excuse from you ?  

Kramnik had a plus score against Shirov, a higher rating, and more tournament success than Shirov. 

Kasparov chose Kramnik as his opponent despite Shirov's victory in a short match that was supposed to be a candidates' match. That was a mistake, but he chose Kramnik because he knew that Kramnik was the better player and a tougher opponent. 

I sympathize with Shirov, but Kasparov's description of Shirov as a "talented amateur" was borne out by Kasparov's lifetime record against him: 15-0 with 14 draws.

Did Kasparov really call Shirov a "talented amateur"? The usual prick.

King Kasparov gets to choose his opponent in a WC match and they wouldnt even let Bobby have the conditions he wanted , let alone pick his opponent ... I doubt he would have chosen Karpov  .  

Like 4-0 5-0 6-0 leads happen all the time in chess matches, yeah.

Btw, Tal himself probably would describe his chess as naive, and a bit like a beginner. He constantly tried to view chess with "new eyes".