TheGrobe wrote:
Wouldn't a true counterintuitivist follow a school of intuitivism?
Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you?
Chess Playing style
Sort:
I start off "conservative" and don't make any sudden moves at my opponent's king early on. I think I need a new strategy :)
Dec 3, 2009
0
#24
Scarblac wrote:
Gomer_Pyle wrote: I like playing solid, positional games. I just suck at it.
Same here.
Count me in.
undirectly attacking
jdilley wrote:
I don't have a style, and I doubt anyone under 2000 does. What we have is a set of weaknesses.
Beat me to it.
I used to say that I had a defensive style. What that really meant is that I didn't know how to attack. My rating stayed around 1400 for about a year at that point, then I got frustrated from lack of improvement, as well as busy with other pursuits, so I stopped playing chess. When I returned to the game after a break of about 3 years, I adopted a "nothing but gambits" opening repertoire to force myself to learn to attack. I dropped 100 rating points in the first few months, then rebounded... to 1500. Now I'm up to 1700 and still climbing, I hope.
The point is that getting out of your comfort zone will hurt a little at first, but it'll help you grow and learn. (And that's not just chess advice)
--Fromper
Dec 3, 2009
0
#27
Defense first--build and consolidate
Then attack--take space, attack imbalances/vulnerable pieces, set traps, conduct advantageous attrition
Wear opponent down on multiple levels--basically continue to limit their options.
I attack, I come right after the king. In blitz iv'e gone from 900 to 1600 because of this stratagie.
I try to have an open opening, then trade a bit and make the midgame kind of short because I feel better in the endgame.
If I get up a knight or bishop, I make the midgame long trying to increase my advantage.
If I'm up a rook or more, I'll try to trade every thing else and pass a pawn.
Style when I win: A tight tactical grind to winning endgames.
Style when I lose: Blunderfest.
when I win its with style and panash but when I lose is usually due to trying to win material foolishly
completely random with the odd stupid mistake!! 
usually positional but I will attack if the position calls for it
Erratic.
rob9258 wrote:
My style is positional -- I only attack when I have an advantage and clear targets. I prefer to build my position, minimize weaknesses, and optimize the mobility of my pieces. I definitely introduce tactics where possible, but only if the move in question also strengthens my position. I don't attack on speculation; I am firmly in the camp that says chess is not poker. This is definitely not what draws most players to the game -- it is not in fact what drew me to the game, I loved to attack when I was younger -- but the attacking style requires a sound positional basis, and as you grow in strength you realize that the attacks are more difficult to force through, and the opponent's counterattacks are a bitch.
i disagree, playing attacking and aggressive is what chess is all about, its the best way to improve ur game.
Jason112 wrote:
rob9258 wrote:
My style is positional -- I only attack when I have an advantage and clear targets. I prefer to build my position, minimize weaknesses, and optimize the mobility of my pieces. I definitely introduce tactics where possible, but only if the move in question also strengthens my position. I don't attack on speculation; I am firmly in the camp that says chess is not poker. This is definitely not what draws most players to the game -- it is not in fact what drew me to the game, I loved to attack when I was younger -- but the attacking style requires a sound positional basis, and as you grow in strength you realize that the attacks are more difficult to force through, and the opponent's counterattacks are a bitch.
i disagree, playing attacking and aggressive is what chess is all about, its the best way to improve ur game.
Interesting to note the ratings of these two players. Really says it all.
My style contains both hope, and inebriation. In OTB chess, I use distraction: falling down at crucial moves, crying, etc. Online, in a bad position, those methods are not as effective (even though they still occur), so I usually open a second bottle of wine and hope for my opponent to fall asleep and lose on time.
i like to play closed games cuz it sometimes not so sharp but more on positioning judgement, but i prefer e4 games cuz white decides the opening, not black.... but i like tactics when i am leading in the hunt or war on a square. i favour ruy lopez as white, nimzo indian as black when facing d4, and caro-kann or maybe go for some guts with french... im not sure what playing style am i.
just...erm...dont like to be the defender of sharp lines, i hate to recieve attacks, but i calculate better when defending. i love to execute attacks when i holds he chance to do so.
anyone can define my style ? hahaha
Wouldn't a true counterintuitivist follow a school of intuitivism?
That's the double bluff school we are from the more advanced triple bluff branch.