which chess player should i study

i need help deciding which chess player i should study for my style 

also how would you describe my (awful) style :P black won the game which is me

First, I answer your question : studying some particular chess player is already an odd idea. But thinking you should study games of XXX because it matches your style, or on the contrary because it does not and this would allow you to focus on your weak points, is IMO a wrong idea - all strong players have no 'style' in the sense they can choose a path opposite to their so-called 'style' if the position requires it.

Said roughly : the objective of chess training is to kill your style. 

Then I will do what the analysis forum is supposed to be for, ie analyse your game :

I don't know theory about the Albin, yet certainly 3.Nc3 was not a good idea, and certainly 3...dxc4 neither (3...exd4) for the reason of the game.

9...Bf5 (?): 9...Bg4, threatening ...e4, looks stronger.

11...Bg4 ? : helps White to develop. Instead ...Nbd7 wins a pawn on e5.

13...b6 ? : pawns are the least of your worries in such a situation. This allows White, besides the quiet 14.0-0 that should win for the same reason, the violent 14.d6 ! and your f7 pawn becomes a huge problem. After (14.d6) 14...Be6 15.0-0-0 you are in serious trouble.

When the smoke clears White has one more piece in a reasonably safe king position, so he should win, but he blundered it after what the endgame should be a draw but Black has some chances.

41.Ra6 ? -> Rb7 is much better.

44...b5 ? -> ...Kc4. After ...b5 White is still in the race for the draw after 45.Ra8 (and not of course the ridiculous Rxd6 ??)

You need a certain skill level before style even enters into the discussion. Focus on improving your game broadly in the area of tactic and strategy for now.

Sir Dudley diggs how are you :) nice to join us after I destroyed you :) I posted this up three years ago please stop stalking my page

I always say start with Paul Morphy.

This is specifically why they say lower rated players should study players from the "Pre-Spassky" era and higher rated players should study Spassky and players after him.

Back in the first half of the 20th century and prior, everyone had a specific area of strength.  

Capablanca favored "simple" position and endgames.  He was not much into retaining tension in the middle of the board, or wild sacrificial tactics, and missed many opportunities at beautiful wins in what instead became more of a "technical" victory.

Alekhine's strength was attacking the opposing King.  It's not about tactical or positional, but rather that he knew how to conduct an attack that was very difficult to defend.

Petrosian was a genius at Defense!

The problem is, then comes Spassky.  Spassky was the first World Champion to be labelled a "Universal" player.  What that means is he has no specific strength or style.  He could have one game drain to an endgame by move 15, the next be a positional struggle without a single pawn trade until move 35, and the third game be a wild, tactical battle with tons of fireworks, and it wouldn't phase him one bit.

Pretty much all of your stronger GMs post-Spassky were or still are the same way.  Sure Karpov was better known for his masterpieces with the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian while Kasparov was better known for his Modern Benoni, King's Indian, and Grunfeld (in that order in his career), but that doesn't mean that's all they played.  Kasparov played the QGA in the World Championship against Kramnik.  He's also played a ton of games with the Queen's Gambit as White.  He was not an exclusive e4 player.  Carlsen has had wild masterpieces and he has played the Colle and London Systems.

After Spassky, you can't put a label to any GM, realistically.

thanks morphysrevenge :D

You can study Immanuel raskel....

Except Giri

You should study your own games.

Nah, not. There is a lot to be learned by studying old masters, starting from Steinitz. Or even Morphy, although his interesting games (the ones the opponent was not playing nonsense) are rather few.

Study them all, especially the masters that play a similar style to your own. ;-) And all that doesn't. Good luck. Magnus Carlsen is of course mandatory. :-)

MC = 2 much

Lasker,Rubenstein,Smyslov.

Your style is very aggressive, keep it up, Naka!

Play through alot of chess games, from more than one top player.

Nice aggressive style!

I work with my balancing when to attack/defend, and sacrifice the correct officers/pawns at the right time. Therefore, a plan is very important, which I need a lot of practice to execute. ;-)

Very good post, jengaias!

 I think to study the current world champion is mandatory though, because he represents the pinnacle of all the great players he have studied in the past, and probably used some ideas to develop his own game. But as TigerShaun notes, he is a complex player to study, because of his immense understanding of the game. So I would maybe, as jengaias mentioned, study the first masters first,and work through some of their classic games.

Good luck,and planning. ;-)

-Ron

Any World Champion

Yes, and lay off the bullet chess!

Study Tal games.A nice agressive style of playing with lots of combinations and attacks.