¿What is my Style?
Sort:
Ah computers.... so much learning
Oct 11, 2018
0
#62
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
Guilax wrote:
Thanks for the coach page, but your rude comment was not necessary.
Why is it that people seem to believe allegations of rudeness are not themselves rude?
That is the question for all of time.
Oct 11, 2018
0
#63
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Don't bother with finding your style. That's the best way not to improve.
Chess has no style , today's chess more than ever.
There are only 2 styles: Correct chess and wrong chess.
Be ready to play as the position demands. You will encounter tough defensive players , you will need to be patient and organise your attack carefully. In some cases playing positionally might be the best. You will encounter reckless players that throw everything i the attack.Either carefully planned defense and exploitation of the weaknesses or counterattack if the king is weakened will be the remedy.
I can find you 50 more senarios but the whole point is :
A player of your level doesn't survive and doesn't improve if he has a "style". The next thing you will do is look for an opening that suits your style and soon you will become Don Quixote fighting a hopeless battle against windmills.
So my "honestly trying to help" advice that you might find rude too:
Stop asking the wrong questions because the answers are more harmless than useful.
Chess is about understanding. Improve your understanding and you will be able to play in any "style" you want.
True.
There is no such thing as a style. Really. Especially if you are below 2600. If you are below 2600, you have no style because you are still learning about the different positions. If you are above 2500, you have no style (because you have mastered all types of positions that come your way). No style. IMBacon, nice avatar!
I think a good way to describe you style is Noobish. Don't worry, atleast you aren't Supernoobish!
"... There is an abundance of openings, a multitude of tempting continuations. Which of them do you select, to which ones should you grant preference?
It would be wrong if you let your choice be dictated by what our leading players play most often. Bear in mind the great importance of playing in just the way that suits you, the way that is to your liking. This is the true key to success in tournament play. …" - The Soviet Chess Primer
I think very strong players do have a style. But like others basically said, before developing your own style, you have to put in a lot of time and work into learning to play chess correctly: proper opening development, middlegame strategy and tactics, and endgame technique. For a long time as you improve, you will win games simply by making fewer mistakes than your opponents and punishing their mistakes. Only around master level and above does resistance get strong enough that you really have to do something to win games, and that's when you develop your own style. Do you go for complex positions and attack across the whole board like Kasparov, play "aggressive prophylaxis" and choke all counterplay out of your opponent like a young Karpov, or go for clean, simple-looking positions and then imperceptibly accumulate advantages to go from "equal" to won?
I would probably be considered a relatively strong player (2456 USCF), but I'm not entirely sure what my style is. I think the main "stylistic" (but mainly psychological) tenet I've taken on the past few years, and that has allowed me to improve by ~100 rating points in my late 30s, is "no fear".
An example: a daily team match win against a GM here.
mickynj wrote:
Until you are a strong player, "playing in just the way that suits you" is probably the single best way to ensure that you never improve! The only way to improve is to root out and destroy your weaknesses not continue to play in the same weak way because "it's my style!" ...
Is anyone advocating that one continue to play in the same weak way? For improvement, does one have to work on all one's weaknesses at once or can some be reasonably postponed until later? Does anyone completely eliminate weaknesses? For the vast majority of players, is there an effort to even come close to eliminating all weaknesses?
"... as you gain experience it will probably become important to find your own style and an opening repertoire in agreement with it." - GM Bent Larsen (1974)
Does it seem likely that it is being advocated that one's style not change and expand over time?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Kindaspongey want rest if he doesn't prove that novices can ...
Is this a thread that is only about the novice?
"Do we have a Style when we are begginer-intermediate level players? ..." - Guilax in post #1
Oct 13, 2018
0
#71
This is a fascinating thread to follow. My initial thoughts would be that sure everyone has a style, and that if you were to trace back a GM such as Tal, with a definite style, that you would find the same characteristics in the games of the much younger Tal. Kindaspongey is making the point that many respected chess authors seem to think along these lines.
However a very large number of people posting on this thread, who's opinion I rate very highly are warning of the grave dangers associated with focusing too much on one's style. With so many posting the same warning, not to focus too heavily on your style or you may fail to progress as a chess player as a result, it would be foolish not to take heed. I heard an interview with a world champion snooker player, who after a certain point lost his confidence to play certain types of shots. He would then engineer the snooker game so that he wouldn't have to play that type of shot. It warped his entire game so that he was no longer winning. I can certainly see a risk that if someone thinks that they are a player who likes open positions, that they may not always play the best move if they are trying harder to engineer an open position than to win the game.
Perhaps the question needs to be re-positioned to make it more helpful. Choosing an opening repertoire is something that needs to be done relatively early in a club player's life. Should the question then be how to choose some openings that suit an individual player? From very early on as a chess player, I looked at some opening lines and really didn't like them, and others and felt more at home. Is that a more positive way of looking at the problem, which could drive some agreement on this thread?
Oct 13, 2018
0
#72
DamonevicSmithlov wrote:
You suck, that's ur style.
Don't listen to these bloody fools , you have positional playing style . these morons do not love chess!
DavidEricAshby wrote:
... My initial thoughts would be that sure everyone has a style, and that if you were to trace back a GM such as Tal, with a definite style, that you would find the same characteristics in the games of the much younger Tal. Kindaspongey is making the point that many respected chess authors seem to think along these lines.
However a very large number of people posting on this thread, who's opinion I rate very highly are warning of the grave dangers associated with focusing too much on one's style. With so many posting the same warning, not to focus too heavily on your style or you may fail to progress as a chess player as a result, it would be foolish not to take heed. ... I can certainly see a risk that if someone thinks that they are a player who likes open positions, that they may not always play the best move if they are trying harder to engineer an open position than to win the game.
Perhaps the question needs to be re-positioned to make it more helpful. Choosing an opening repertoire is something that needs to be done relatively early in a club player's life. Should the question then be how to choose some openings that suit an individual player? ... Is that a more positive way of looking at the problem, which could drive some agreement on this thread?
For what it is worth, that sounds pretty good to me. I would go a little farther and suggest that perhaps there is not really much of a disagreement at all. Perhaps it is mostly a matter of how different people think of the word, "style". Some associate it with players like Tal (in, say, 1960), while others associate it with traits that class players can have. From time to time, I try to remind people of the absence of a generally accepted authority for the meaning of words like "style". Nevertheless, people can become very belligerent about ideas related to their own concept of the meaning of a word.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
DavidEricAshby wrote:
Choosing an opening repertoire is something that needs to be done relatively early in a club player's life. Should the question then be how to choose some openings that suit an individual player? From very early on as a chess player, I looked at some opening lines and really didn't like them, and others and felt more at home. Is that a more positive way of looking at the problem, which could drive some agreement on this thread?
These are interesting questions but they are too many.
Should the question then be how to choose some openings that suit an individual player?
This is not a simple answer. Unlike what many think the choice of the openig is realted with how much you will be able to learn. There are no better openings as long as play something reasonable but there are more educational openings.
Let me give you an example. Dutch defense(1.d4 f5) is perfectly fine for Black but it exposes you to a limited amount of positions that they are not so useful if you want to gain an all around good strategic understanding. Queen's gambit on the other hand(1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6) will expose you to positions that are of more universal value.
Usually players who choose to ignore that important "rule" reach a level and hit a wall and you will see them not understanding a lot of very important concepts. Unfortunately in many cases an "opening repertoire" is used only as a "carpet that will cover the dirt" since wiping the dirt is a procedure that demands certain "sacrifices" and many chessplayers , surprisingly , tend to choose the easy way.
So there are many things to consider when you choose an opening repertoire and mainly the goals and the means. If your goal is to improve and if you are willing to spend some serious time analysing your games and studying chess it would silly not to choose the openings with the most instructive value. They will help you go higher , faster(comparing with other choices). If though chess for you is just a hobby to relax and you don't care so much if you ever become an expert then choose something you like or something you feel comfortable or something that suits your "style".
From very early on as a chess player, I looked at some opening lines and really didn't like them, and others and felt more at home. Is that a more positive way of looking at the problem, which could drive some agreement on this thread?
It is normal to like or not to like something but why you don't like it? Is it possible that you didn't look deep enough at it? Is it possible that you didn't realise the potential of the position? Usually amateurs tend not to like everything they don't understand. In many cases they even use labels to reject. "It's drawish" is the most common one and the most characteristic way for a player to say " I don't understand the position". This is because many hear or read GMs call drawish this or that. But a GM calls drawish a position he understands PERFECTLY and it's not versatile enough to five him winning chances if his opponent( a GM) also understand it perfectly.
In lower level chess that is never the case. You never understand the position perfectly(quite the contrary) and you never play with an opponent that understands it perfectly. The winning chances are always more than enough.
A chessplayer owes to feel like an explorer. If you decide to go deep into a line be sure you understand the subtleties good enough to justify your decision to like it or not to like it. Not because that is some kind of unwritten rule but because it will help you gain a better overall understanding about the opening. Often things that appear in one line will appear in several other lines. Chess is an especially complicated sport because a small, seemingly unimportant, gap in your understanding often creates the " domino effect"(one falls , everything falls) or the "algebra effect" (f you don't understand something in the first lesson , you won't be able to understand the next lesson and you more likely won't be able to understand a whole semester's lessons).
And that is one more reason why it is better to start with openings that have a more univeral instructive value and they will help you cover your "gaps" more efficiently.
But again ,don't forget that it's a matter of the goals and the means.
An excellent post!
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Nevertheless, people can become very belligerent about ideas related to their own concept of the meaning of a word.
... No one is more belligerent than you in these forums.There is nothing more belligerent than trying to mislead chessplayers like you are systematically doing every day for ...
I am not trying to mislead chessplayers.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... Usually players who choose to ignore that important "rule" reach a level and hit a wall and you will see them not understanding a lot of very important concepts. Unfortunately in many cases an "opening repertoire" is used only as a "carpet that will cover the dirt" since wiping the dirt is a procedure that demands certain "sacrifices" and many chessplayers , surprisingly , tend to choose the easy way.
So there are many things to consider when you choose an opening repertoire and mainly the goals and the means. If your goal is to improve and if you are willing to spend some serious time analysing your games and studying chess it would silly not to choose the openings with the most instructive value. They will help you go higher , faster(comparing with other choices). If though chess for you is just a hobby to relax and you don't care so much if you ever become an expert then choose something you like or something you feel comfortable or something that suits your "style". ...
Isn't it possible that one could choose a "comfortable" opening for now and work on something more instructive later?
StirMyCustard wrote: "... Players rated 2700 + can have a style. Everything under that is a misdiagnosis."
GM Michael Stean wrote (in 1978, for players somewhat below 2700): "... This style of play is simple and economical both in its conception and execution. ..."
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104258/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review400.pdf
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... If your goal is to improve and if you are willing to spend some serious time analysing your games and studying chess it would silly not to choose the openings with the most instructive value. They will help you go higher , faster(comparing with other choices). If though chess for you is just a hobby to relax and you don't care so much if you ever become an expert then choose something you like or something you feel comfortable or something that suits your "style". ...
Isn't it possible that one could choose a "comfortable" opening for now and work on something more instructive later?
... Everything you do or you don't do has a price not only in chess but in life too. ...
If you choose "comfortable" or "convenient" you simply hinder, delay in some cases even kill your own development. ...
"Alekhine advised beginners not to play the Spanish game. We also recommend you get some experience first by playing relatively simple openings - the Scotch and Italian games - and only then move on to the Spanish one." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin
[Site "Chess.com iPhone"]
[Date "10/16/2018 10:40PM"]
[White "EBusch (1075)"]
[Black "handymanny0207 (1083)"]
1.d4 c5 2.dxc5 Qa5+ 3.Nc3 Qxc5 4.Be3 Qc7 5.Nd5 Qd6 6.Bf4 Qc6 7.Nc7+ Kd8 8.Nxa8 Nf6 9.Bc7+ Ke8 10.Bxb8 d6 11.Nc7+ Kd7 12.e3 Qb6 13.a4 Qxb2 14.Bb5+ Kd8 15.Bxa7 Ne4 16.Bb6 e5 17.Nd5# {EBusch wins by Checkmate}
[Date "10/16/2018 10:40PM"]
[White "EBusch (1075)"]
[Black "handymanny0207 (1083)"]
1.d4 c5 2.dxc5 Qa5+ 3.Nc3 Qxc5 4.Be3 Qc7 5.Nd5 Qd6 6.Bf4 Qc6 7.Nc7+ Kd8 8.Nxa8 Nf6 9.Bc7+ Ke8 10.Bxb8 d6 11.Nc7+ Kd7 12.e3 Qb6 13.a4 Qxb2 14.Bb5+ Kd8 15.Bxa7 Ne4 16.Bb6 e5 17.Nd5# {EBusch wins by Checkmate}