Maxim Dlugy
I used to be able to glance at a position from one of his games, and 90% of the time, I could tell you his move in 3 seconds.
What superGM does YOUR style correspond with most?
Sort:
Mar 7, 2013
0
#3
Hm, I'm certainly not strong enough to grasp the features of the modern SuperGM styles, but if I had to guess, it might be either Kramnik or Carlsen. I generally play careful chess. I try to build tough positions and only wish to take decisive action when I feel I have built my position for it. However, I experience those days when I simply don't care for all that stuff and just want to create explosions on the board like a Tal, Alekhine, or Kasparov. However, in general, that's not how I play. I would say that, for my level, anyways, I play like Capablanca, Petrosian, and Karpov, that kind of deal.
Capablanca 60%, Tal 20%, Carlsen 10%, and Euwe maybe 5%. The remaining 5% would be spread between Karpov, Alekhine and Pandolfini.
I identify with Kasparov's style the most. Of course I could never dream to play like him, but I try to base my opening repetoire around his style and my middle-game planning based on his overall chess thinking.
I'd say my style resembles that of Carlsen's paperboy or accountant
My style resembles NN
Mine resembles that of Alekhine's cat ...
Alekhine was a heavy drinker. He once appeared at an event so inebriated that he began to urinate on the floor.
He would often bring his cat with him to tournaments and would have him by his side while he played.
Mar 8, 2013
0
#9
I admire the style of players such as Capablanca, Smyslov, Rubinstein and Fischer. BUT to think that my play in any way resembles theirs would be really delusional. I'm interested in more mundane matters like improving my overall play and results, as well as in learning as much as I can.
Mar 8, 2013
0
#10
I agree, Nimzo.
My own repertoire has shades of Kramnik, Movsesian and Hou Yifan. But I don't claim my "style" resembles theirs. I definitely take my inspiration from the great positional masters of the past and study closely the great tactical monsters such as Tal, Shirov, and Kasparov.
paulgottlieb wrote:
For most of us, the idea of a chess "style" is pretty ridiculous. Our "style" is that we miss tactics, drop pieces, make positional errors and play the endgame poorly! The one thing we should be working towards is to get rid of "style" and stasrt playing good chess.
Also, while the top GM's do have distinct playing styles, those differences are much smaller than we think, and all these players are much more "universal" than we imagine. Petrosian was a great calculator and tactician. If you go through his games you will find many short tactical crushes. Fischer was one of the best endgame players ever. In both rook and bishop endgames he played with incredible delicacy and precision. But Fischer would also happily grab all the space on the board and crush you. The same is true of all the top players. They are immensely strong in almost every aspect of the game.
That's all very true and the first part of it gave me a chuckle (how we drop pieces miss tactics etc.) and of course superGM's play style is closer to each others than normal but I think that when the top players play against each other then their style comes out more because there is less room for cheapos... A good example illustrating the differences in players styles was Anand v Aronian in the Wik Aan Zee 2013, you would not expect Anand to play such an exiting game because of what his style "is" but then relating it to your point, they play good chess; he saw that was a possibility so he went for it
Mar 8, 2013
0
#12
billycon wrote:
... A good example illustrating the differences in players styles was Anand v Aronian in the Wik Aan Zee 2013, you would not expect Anand to play such an exiting game because of what his style "is" but then relating it to your point, they play good chess; he saw that was a possibility so he went for it
I wonder what people do to come up with such opinions. It obviously isn't by following these players or studying their games.
blackrabbitto wrote:
Mine resembles that of Alekhine's cat ...
Alekhine was a heavy drinker. He once appeared at an event so inebriated that he began to urinate on the floor.
He would often bring his cat with him to tournaments and would have him by his side while he played.
SmyslovFan wrote:
billycon wrote:
... A good example illustrating the differences in players styles was Anand v Aronian in the Wik Aan Zee 2013, you would not expect Anand to play such an exiting game because of what his style "is" but then relating it to your point, they play good chess; he saw that was a possibility so he went for it
I wonder what people do to come up with such opinions. It obviously isn't by following these players or studying their games.
I don't know if I can plug links here so I won't but google anand games and click the third link (chessgames dot com link) those are some of the posters favorite games and they're style. You seem to take offense that I don't call their games exiting but watching Carlsen grind Aronian (I like Aronian sorry for using him in both examples) in the 2012 Wik Aan Zee; that was not an exiting game, it was an incredible game which showed why Carlsen is possibly the best player to ever live but exiting? Hardly.
I just reviewed some of Anand's world title matches because you had me questioning what I thought to be true but no, I believe that you're wrong on this one, in Kramniks match 2008 score was +3 -1 for Vishy; Kramniks win was 28 moves and all the pieces were on the board (that can be called an exiting game, not better or worse, but exiting because more room for variation/blunders) Vishy's wins were just as genius but not nearly as exiting (for instance in game 5, 34. ... Ne3 "sacrificing a knight (because it garantees queening)" but getting a resignation the next move is as daring Anand will get, usually.) That Aronian game was one where he really played outside his regular style, that's all I was saying.
Even though you probably don't agree with me still (and maybe at my skill level I think of exiting as different or maybe you just like Anand alot) that was good that you answered with that because I have never looked at the 2008 world championship game 5 which turns out is a very good match definitely check it out, 10/20/08 kramnik is white and D49 opening.
ive actually wondered, if I was suddenly a superGM (so at their strength) whos style i would be closest to.
Its really difficult to answer as my openings are so different (i know openings =/= style, but its much easier to see whos style you match if you play openings that they all play, ex/spanish, najdorf, nimzo).
I'd go with Morozevich. My play and openings are a bit offbeat, im fairly aggressive. I would also prefer to have complications than an advantage anything less than 1.
Mar 8, 2013
0
#17
rooperi wrote:
My style resembles NN
NN!! I've heard of him!!
The most determined chessplayer ever!
He's like wiley Coyote. He never gives up.
paulgottlieb wrote:
Players under 2400 don't have styles; they have weaknesses!
Why 2400? 
My style is a combination of Carlsen, Ivanchuk, Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Tal, Alekhine, Capablanca, and Morphy. Except I blunder more frequently, am not very good tactically, and don't have a clue what is meant by "stragedy" or "positional play".
Obviously this is a very subjective question but think about it this way. When you play most comfortably (lots of pieces vs few pieces, tactical vs positional) what superGM (or famous player in general) does your style remind you of. Now, I'm a relatively weak player (1400 on blitz, got crushed about a year ago when I played a 1600 club player (although there's hope! I scored 1850 on the estimate your elo test on this website yesterday)).
My play lately has been more positonal lately because I see better results but I think my favorite playing style is Alekhinian, I like tense positions with many pieces on the board and coming to a game winning attack with involving piece coordination (though I often fail seeing the attack through, see my other thread :( )
Is your style more positional and quiet maybe like Tigran or Karpov, do you play to get your opponent to mess up and exploit it like Fischer or do you like to go all out like the romantics and Tal?
The follow up question would be if your style of comfort has changed as you progressed and if you play to your style even if you don't see results as if you were playing another style. I first started thinking of this when I saw some Alekhine games and realized how I try to play like him and then yesterday I saw a video of a young Magnus being crushed by Kasparov in the KID (Magnus pre 2500 was an attacking player not the positional player we know and love today).
So... Let's hear it, what player does your style most correlate to and how has it changed since you started?