Aggresive or Deffensive?

Look, I like to play both sides of the story, though I prefer aggresive playing style. I play defensive unless I am controling the center. I think that it really depends on the situation that you are in to decide what style you use. I also like to attack when they are controling the center, so as to get them out of there ASAP. So, I guess I would like to play aggresive more.

Sorry, Elubas, but I think you may have misunderstood me.  I said that Style for Chess by comparison is more like personality for people.  While on the other hand, just having a preference in Chess is more like making a quick uninformed decision in life.

I don't mean that you have to have an aggressive personality to have aggressive style.  This is way off the mark of what I'm going for.

Let's look at it ANOTHER way.

When you are a baby, what kind of personality do you have?  As well, when you first begin Chess, what kind of style do you have?

Nothing at this point is for certain.  You can only tell what is liked, wanted, or perfered at that time.

Now, as you get older and become kid, your preferences change.  Same goes for Chess.  As you learn more and gain more experience, your preferences in what style you may be going for will change as well.

Only until you've reached a nice adult age where you've learned enough and experienced enough will you know not only what you want, but who exactly you are in this world.  Again, similar to Chess whereas you only begin to possess your own style when you've learned and experienced enough of it to not even have to think about what you want. 

Okay, so just to make things a bit more clear, remember, it's about YOUR own specific style.

Sure there are the usual vaguely characterized styles like aggressive and deffensive, but Syntax, I believe was referring to YOUR own personnal style.  Not just a style you are using at the time.  That would make it more a preference.

Your own style is not a choice.  It's who you've become in the world of Chess throughout the time you've been here.

That might be what style means to you, but that's a very abstract interpretation of the word style. Now I haven't actually looked it up but I can bet that's not what it is. I sort of see what you're saying, but what you're describing is more simply referred to as a better player who also has a style, and is... more sure of if he really wants it and how to play it. Is it that you think some players are too weak to claim they are aggressive if they suck at attacking because they're weak?  In fact it's not the style (or preference if you prefer) that's superior, it's simply the play. I do know exactly how I want to play even though I'm under 2200. But just because a style can change for a lower rated player does not mean he can't be considered to have a style. My "own personal style" of course in complete detail can't just be labeled attacking or defensive, but psychological play, when I think I should attack or defend, etc. are indeed more specific and that goes for everyone, and some are more respectable than others. But I definitley feel that I have the style you're talking about and will likely never change it so that "feeling" can happen way lower than just the elite players. I seem to have a structured way of making decisions, and that seems to be exactly what you're describing. It's far from great, but I know what I'm doing.

Sorry, Elubas, but I actually have looked up the word "style".  I tend to do that when I'm in some sort of debate type situation.  I like to have all my information so I'm not really giving off some empty arguments.

Now, from the definitions of style, I'm pretty much on the mark about what I'm talking about.  Maybe you should think about checking it before you type anything else.

And from what I see you typing is that you basically have nothing left to learn in Chess and even if you did there is no possible way it would effect the way you play your games.

Well, I'm glad you have your own personnal style that keeps you below 2200. 

I'm just saying that when I'm ready to claim a style I can call my own, I'd rather it be a style that others could only wish they had.  And I'm not talking about when people say, "I wish I were as good as him."  I'm talking about when people say, "I wish I could play like him."  Playing as good as someone is different than playing like someone.  Because I wish I were as good as any GM, but I wish I could play more like only Paul Morphy.

Well you know blissturd, I do have alot of knowledge about the game, but first of all I have a lot more to learn (why I'm looking at master games, doing chess mentor, etc.) but really at this stage I need to learn how to use what I've learned affectively in games. This means finding creative tactical ways to achieve my goals and this stuff can not be done with just learning some concepts out of a book. Knowledge is only half of a player, which I think I have pretty well (far from perfect of coruse) but that's not the primary thing that's keeping me from the higher ranks. I can tell you from my experience I definitley know what playing style I want at least. Definitley, but far from master. Ok, fine, apparently the dictionary agrees with you (I'll just trust that you looked it up, I'm not checking) and we can just call them preferences. I actually wanted to discuss that instead. If it makes you feel good to critisize my actual play (which you know nothing about) just because I used style wrong fine, I don't care. Do you think you're smarter than me because you looked up a word? I was using common sense with the disadvantage of no dictionary lol.

But I personally think that when you talk about admiring how they play you're doing the same thing as I often do but instead in the past remember just thinking of him just playing really well, not really the style! But I think they're saying pretty much the same thing, and I don't think that's what the OP meant. We're just talking about being aggressive or defensive. In fact I think Syntax actually meant both preferences and style when he origingally posted, because he said good players play the board, implying that playing with a preference might be incorrect. As I have said, playing the board is important, but everyone wants to steer the game into tactical or positional depending on what they prefer more.

I would be very happy to be a GM and I don't care which one I emulate honestly! It's all a matter of opinion.

So why don't we instead discuss something a little more relevant, like if you like to be aggressive or defensive??

Hey, Elubas, I was only defending Syntax because most others weren't understanding what he was talking about and were basically bashing his post.

I was mearly identifying what I believed he was talking about. 

Whatever you want style to mean to you is fine.  It's your life.

I just think that "style" is more a definitive word and I don't want to think that my style is already developed at an average score of around 1400.

As for a style(not mine) that I prefer to use at this time in my Chess life, I would choose the more aggressive approach.  Which is why I like to play he King's Gambit.

Not to get into a big discussion about what "personality" means now that "style" is defined, but I want to say that my wife had our first child about three weeks ago, and the little one already has quite the personality.  Can that personality fully express itself?  No.  I wonder if the same is true for patzer players like myself.  We have impulses when playing, a natural inclination to positions or tactics but don't yet have the knowledge or skill base to effectively use those inclinations.  Thoughts?

And I like to build solid attacks behind pawn chains or counter-attack, to answer the original question.

Well, I have two of my own children, 16 months and 4 months.  My girlfriends daughter has a baby too, 15 months. The only things that really differentiated them from birth to 3 weeks is about how much they cry or vomit.  There were some other things too but mainly, a baby is a baby.

When its still in newborn stages it really only has it's natural responses and actions called innate behaviors.  It really just eats, sleeps, cries, poos and pees.

Even as they get older their personality is not fully develped.  I rotten kid can grow up to be very mature and caring while a good kid can end up going to jail. 

Not sure realy where this is going.  I'd rather get back on track and stick with the OP.

Just start a new thread and I'll be there to share my thoughts on life and my philosophy of things.

My intention was not to stray from the OP but to use analogy to comment on the OP, that is, I've heard that all players sub whatever arbitrary class have not style, just as I've heard it said that infants have no personality, but I wonder if it's closer to the truth to say that patzers like myself may have style but style is not fully formed, and I do not have the skills to capitalize on it, while it does often act as a handi-cap

"style" is just not a special word to me or anything, I just consider it to describe how you play the game, and that to an extent can be categorized in chess with the typical attacking, defending, unorthodox etc.I'm going to use the word style for this topic because I think it is well developed enough and I don't think I will ever change it.

I'm a somewhat balanced player who prefers positional games and plans but will play the board and adjust how I play based on the position as some positions are static, others dynamic. I don't like making risky pawn sacs for the sake of a few tempi if there are safer alternatives, but once in a long while (and that's because I don't believe most of these to be sound) I'll make a positional sac but not to create a brilliancy or anything. I play for the win as everybody does but I don't mind draws as long as I feel I've played well, though too often I'm in a completely winning endgame and I make too many mistakes because it's complicated and just agree to a draw. But still most of my games are won based on tactical errors, though there are ones where I have built up crushing positions, some I pushed home, and some I ruined if in time pressure. I have to work on making tactical pawn breaks (like in the benoni, I generally can't see why e5 makes a good pawn sac but in books I see it so often, it must be because not only do you have to calculate but often you have to asses a position 5 moves deep without moving pieces!).

The thing is, a while ago I couldn't describe my "style" at all so I am going to guess that means something.

Thanks.

How do you know that's what Syntax was talking about? There are alot of people who say that and don't mean what you're talking about?

Notice how I said "believed" and not "know". I never said that I know what he means. But, he never said that I wasn't right either. Maybe I did guess exactly what he meant? I guess we can all just assume that he meant what I thought he meant until he posts otherwise.

Generally, you can tell a person's style simply from their opening choice, for example, here are two looks that I'm sure many people have seen during their live chess games.

1. Defensive.

I don't understand. How did you come to the conclusion that "only the attacker wins"?

Atack!!!!

More often at a high level the other player would resign before that's necessary.

My style can't be totally described by one word either (so I made a paragraph), but the word that would say the most would be "positional". I mean a top player's "style" is obviously more special than an amateurs because they're better players and therefore the way they play must be better. But I too have alot more to my "style" than "I like to attack" or "I like to defend". I know I have a style and there is indeed no question about it.

So if a top player is wondering how his students play, will he just assume that because they aren't masters they play like robots? It's not really the style that makes you good but the execution of it. In many ways, the perfect execution of my style would be a player like Karpov.

For me i prefer to let my opposant attacking if is not very well prepare. Generally he shoot on his owne foot. Morphy an attacking genius demonstrate the importance to go to offensive with a good position and all pieces you need.

i play offense more often than defense but i transpose whenever it looks best!