Contrary to the conceitedness of many masters, yes I think every player has a style. One's style is just the mark of his/her particular manner of chess thinking on the moves the he/she selects. Concepts like "positional style" or "attacking style" are just broad generalizations anyway, pigeon holes, with limited validity. I'd say it's YOU who are best suited to determine your own style by examining your thinking -- not us to (half heartedly) look at a bunch of unannotated games and ascribe some adjective.
¿What is my Style?
Sort:
I think your style is to develope pieces and you like complex positions. My suggestion is to pay more attention on what your opponent is trying to do. If your opponent attack a pawn, sometime is good to avoid a passive position and try a counterattack. The second game you lost is very instructive. Instead of Re8-c8 to defend the pawn, I would have played Qg6 without too much calculating. And also I don't like Bb6-c7 because you loose control of e row (better Re8).
You like to hang pieces, you are a hanger
CalpiognaChess escribió:
I think your style is to develope pieces and you like complex positions. My suggestion is to pay more attention on what your opponent is trying to do. If your opponent attack a pawn, sometime is good to avoid a passive position and try a counterattack. The second game you lost is very instructive. Instead of Re8-c8 to defend the pawn, I would have played Qg6 without too much calculating. And also I don't like Bb6-c7 because you loose control of e row (better Re8).
You are right in those plays. In the first I lost opportunity to have a more offensive game. In the second I totally lost control of the e row.
What do you mean exactly with develop pieces and like complex positions? Is not that contradictory with what you say afterwards: little search of counterattack and defense of a pawn when it is not necessary?
Ahptoemiz wrote:
Contrary to the conceitedness of many masters, yes I think every player has a style.
True enough, but "Thud and Blunder" is a style to abandon, not one to further refine.
Ahptoemiz escribió:
Contrary to the conceitedness of many masters, yes I think every player has a style. One's style is just the mark of his/her particular manner of chess thinking on the moves the he/she selects. Concepts like "positional style" or "attacking style" are just broad generalizations anyway, pigeon holes, with limited validity. I'd say it's YOU who are best suited to determine your own style by examining your thinking -- not us to (half heartedly) look at a bunch of unannotated games and ascribe some adjective.
That was my initial question. Independent of the level, what style trend was seen in my game. But from what they tell me, it does not help much to know, and I think they're right. And it's true what you say, I should analyze my game more. But time is always missing.
pfren escribió:
I play chess for some 50 years, and I never got something resembling a style.
And why do you think you never developed one? Because there is no such thing as a style? Or because it is very difficult to develop one? Or maybe because it's not necessary?
hes saying hes not good enough and by saying that, we aren't either
Guilax wrote:
Take it from me though: spending the vast majority of your chess time unreflectively pounding out blitz games is pretty much the worst thing you can do if you want to improve. You have to analyze, reflect and study and play a good portion of your games as long or turn-based games so you can really think about what you're doing and explore alternatives.
If you don't you'll (like I did) likely plateau at a pretty weak level -- the result of all the conditioning where you've only ever looked at positions and structures on a superficial level and don't really understand them or know how to play them properly.
Ahptoemiz escribió:
Contrary to the conceitedness of many masters, yes I think every player has a style. One's style is just the mark of his/her particular manner of chess thinking on the moves the he/she selects. Concepts like "positional style" or "attacking style" are just broad generalizations anyway, pigeon holes, with limited validity. I'd say it's YOU who are best suited to determine your own style by examining your thinking -- not us to (half heartedly) look at a bunch of unannotated games and ascribe some adjective.
That was my initial question. Independent of the level, what style trend was seen in my game. But from what they tell me, it does not help much to know, and I think they're right. And it's true what you say, I should analyze my game more. But time is always missing.
"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)
kindaspongey wrote:
And if Nunn wrote this directed primarily at a patzer audience when (according to some) patzers don't have styles and as a GM Nunn should know this, then he'd just be engaging in a cynical ploy.
Giving Nunn the benefit of that doubt, he confirms everyone does in fact have a style.
"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)
"... You should prepare your repertoire according to your own chess tastes and style. ..." - GM Artur Yusupov (2008)
DeirdreSkye wrote:
I believe or disbelieve any proposition on the relevant facts.
And some condemnation of a widespread practice in TV advertising has little bearing on whether amateur chess players have playing styles.
Also, I did include the possibility that Nunn might just be cynically pandering to an audience and customers base. So I guess what you're really doing here is pretending to "refute" me by failing to even acknowledge what I already considered.
Ahptoemiz wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
And if Nunn wrote this directed primarily at a patzer audience when (according to some) patzers don't have styles and as a GM Nunn should know this, then he'd just be engaging in a cynical ploy. Giving Nunn the benefit of that doubt, he confirms everyone does in fact have a style.
"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)
Or he is just trying to sell books to patzers and patzers like to know they have a style. Tell a patzer that he is "aggressive" and "tactical" and he will immediatelly love you. Give him a couple of "tactical" and "aggressive" openings and he will adore you! Tell him the truth and he will hate you.
It's the similar case with tv advertisments that try to convince you that you will be happy if you buy a specific product. I suppose you believe them too.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Don't pay attention to kindaspongey's posts and lists as he is selling books and mainly useless opening books. He will do everything he can to mislead you. He systematically attacks with "nonsense" (isolated quotes that have different meaning as part of a whole program and completely different isolated) everything that is bad for business and novices or beginners that believe in "style" are easy prey.
Give spongey some credit. Who is better at not answering a question, or answering a question with a question than he is?
One problem with developing a "style" is that good chess requires you to play any type of position.
It is important to understand all phases of a chess game.
That’s what I’m saying. There is no one true style.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
… Yusupov and Dvoretsky in their book "Opening preparation" ... Even in book 2 , the authors more or less say that a repertoire has no meaning if you don't understand the basic opening principles and if you can't deal with unexpected opening moves and ...
Specific quote?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... a series for the tournament player … in book 1 openings and styles aren't mentioned at all! ...
"In this lesson we will examine the most important principles in playing the opening. …" - page 30 of GM Artur Yusupov's book, Build Up Your Chess 1
But every player has a small combination of all, and good players HAVE it all.
Consequently , there is no such thing as a “style”.
Thus you are asking the wrong question.
As for your rating, keep on improving and you may find things that you PREFER like attacking, positional play, etc.
Then that isn’t your style either.
It’s just what you prefer.
Since “style” is undefined, your question is not good.
Nonetheless, your games are quite interesting! (Whatever IMBacon has to say). Found them quite enjoyable. Keep on playing and improving!
Thanks for the compliment! I do my best. Yeh I am aware now that you should not look for your style but improve your game. It is interesting what you say, that one is taking preference in the measure that one is capable of executing any "style". Greetings and thanks again