You'd be busy for years just working on the basics of the game, which are plentiful.
Don't worry about style. Try to get competent at tactics, positional play, everything. If you wish to be a serious student of the game, that is your goal before thinking about style and which one is for you.
By the time anyone can blindly pick out middlegames and say That sure looks like something X would do, you'd be a very strong player.
You'd be busy for years just working on the basics of the game, which are plentiful.
Don't worry about style. Try to get competent at tactics, positional play, everything. If you wish to be a serious student of the game, that is your goal before thinking about style and which one is for you.
By the time anyone can blindly pick out middlegames and say That sure looks like something X would do, you'd be a very strong player.
I understand. Did I play well in these games? Or was it mainly due to blunders by my opponent?
Sometimes I read Chess advice that speaks to a person's style. My problem is that I don't really know what my style is. I've always found myself trying to use positional ideas, but lacking the tactical ability to make proper use of them. I have since started to do lots of mate in 1, 2 and 3 chess puzzles and I think I'm starting to get a feel for the ways that positional play and tactical play intertwine. I believe Bobby Fischer said, "Tactics flow from a superior position".
I know that these examples are against a lower rated player, but I really put in effort to play the strongest chess I could play. I know that my opponent made less than optimal moves, but I feel that I was able to effectively recognize and capitalize on those mistakes, making for a very efficient win.
I think these games can be instructive to lower rated players as an example of how an opening advantage can lead to a win. I was very unfamiliar with the openings my opponent played. I tried my best to play by opening principles. I'd like to know if my thinking was sound or if I missed anything that could have shattered my plan. I feel like I understand the concept of planning and tactical calculation better because of these games.
The power of the Two Bishops:
This game shows how powerful the bishop pair can be on an open board. This is a game that made me know that my chess puzzle practice is paying off.
Later on, I was looking for games with Philidor's defence. I found this gem. I had seen it before, but it had MUCH more meaning to me now.
Somehow, the moves he played looked really clean and precise, and I was shocked that I had found similar opening moves on my own. This is the first time I recognized a great player who's style I could "feel". Should I seek to play more like him?
The next game was against the same player. I think there are lot of themes in this game, and I'm proud of the fact that I was able to use so many ideas all at once. I was able to lay a lot of traps for my opponent. This one felt like a positional game where I found lots of subtle ways to apply pressure until material is won by force, or by inducing mistakes by limiting his options.
These are the kind of games I like. Whatever style these games Illustrate, I want to emulate it more. I also like endgame. I tend to try to shape the position into a winning endgame.
Can anyone please comment and give some examples of masters who I could learn from? Are there any positional players I could emulate as well? Casablanca maybe? I'm really not sure.