To me you seem very aggressively oriented. The aggressive that makes me scared every time I play you, even when we were smaller and played in tournaments. You seem to love sharp variations, for better and for worse, and I guess positional play prolly is the area with greatest growing potential as I see it.
What is my style?
Sort:
Feb 27, 2018
0
#3
My favorite answer to this question (That is asked a million times) is this:
Until you reach Master, your style is blundering.
Aren't you the one who told us about being known as the drawing master?
No 
FishEyedFools wrote:
My favorite answer to this question (That is asked a million times) is this:
Until you reach Master, your style is blundering.
which sounds funny, but is just wrong. People like different things and are good at different things. You don't have to be a master to recognize that you like tactical play more/are better at tactical play than at positional play, and vice versa.
of course, one regularly blunders below master level, but that has nothing to do with the question.
Feb 28, 2018
0
#7
DeirdreSkye wrote:
A huge misconception is when an amateur thinks that he has style because he tends to win a particular type of games , for example tactical games. That happens to most amateurs and they all tend to believe that they are " aggressive players" ,not because they are good in tactics , but because they are very bad in everything else. It's much easier of course to create cheap threats and win because the opponent missed them than play a good game where tactics will come as part of a good positional understanding. In the "non blunder" games ,tactics are always result of good positional chess.
I know a guy , completely ignorant , that can win most of his friends with Scholar's mate and because of that he considers himself "aggressive". When he plays against me , he loses , but justifies that saying that " you are not better , but I can't play aginst your style". The only thing I do is to play 1...e6 which eliminates any chance for Scholars mate and nothing else. One blunder after another follows and I just pick the loose pieces while he still tries to find out a way to checkmate me on f7(even after I castle). According to him , his style is "aggressive" and I am a "boring defensive player".
With the word "style" most try to explain things that they don't understand. Yes , I had a "style" too once. Until I realised that players like me can have only one style:
Learning.
It was not only arrogance but also ignorance to believe that I had any other style.
This is precisely why i do not teach those cheap mates. Beginners tend to fall in love with them, think they will work against everyone, and it slows there growth as a chess player. Now if a student does fall for it, then we will go over the game and i will explain the "why" behind the mate.
In the years i have been here, one of the most posted questions asked is: "Im an agressive/tactical player...what openings should i play?"
99.99% of the time, its posted by a player that is low rated/beginner. And when you go over there games, they continually do not follow opening principles, miss simple tactics, and hang pieces. Do they want to work on that part of there game? NOOOOOO...they are agressive/tactical, play the Sicilian, and cant understand why they are losing in 10 moves.
Although there is a great deal of truth to the "your style is blundering" statement, I agree with h4_explosive when he says players below master level also have different styles and preferences. Also, there shouldn't be many blunders in my recent daily games. Thanks to moddiaable and With_every_step for answering my question. I was actually a bit surprised that they think I'm an aggressive player, because I tend to avoid sharp tactical melees - but I guess aggressive and sharp aren't quite the same thing. I hope to get more feedback on my playing style and also opening/middlegame/endgame strengths and weaknesses. Cheers!
"Building a repertoire ... we will take the idealized situation of someone starting from square one ... The first step is to think about your personal style. Do you prefer open, tactical positions or closed, strategic positions? Does an attack on your king make you nervous, or are you happy so long as you have a counter-attack? Do you prefer main lines, or something slightly offbeat? Next, look at the various openings available, and see which ones fit in with your personal style. ..." - GM John Nunn (1998)
Feb 28, 2018
0
#10
I would describe your style as "safe". You seem like a "safe" and "defensive" player that wins mostly only by taking advantage of the opponents weaknesses. As for me, I myself have been described as a "weird" or "unorthodox" player, and at times, "risky". It's all opinion.
Actually, what Magdeburg-Alkan is saying is pretty much what I expected to hear. Still interested in getting more feedback
guys: what kind of player am i?
Update: I have now played five over-the-board games, so please use my latest five games for your assessment. You can find my games here: https://www.chess.com/blog/AndreAnda
I'm curious about your take on my playing style. Solid/aggressive, creative/boring, tactical/positional etc. Any feedback is welcome, but if you see areas of my game that is better or worse than others, it would be great if you would let me know. Please use my latest 5-10 Daily Chess games for your analysis. Thank you!
