"... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. If you like to attack and you are not afraid of sacrificing and taking risks choose sharp gambit openings. If you prefer a quiet game, then there are relatively calm openings for you. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin
(The book also explains how the rook moves.)
I like IM Danny's take on the subject: "Players under 2000 don't have a style; they just have weaknesses they're trying to avoid."
isn't that the whole point of a style? whether you are a beginner or a Grand Master. You will be stronger in one area of play and weaker in another and you try to avoid those weaknesses in a game.
Don't take this as a personal criticism, but at your current level, you are weak in all areas of play. You should not be choosing how to play a game to make it more positional or more tactical or whatever. First, it will not be possible due to much more fundamental weaknesses and mistakes. Second, you need to practice all kinds of positions as much as possible (and solve lots and lots of problems, particularly on tactics and basic endgame principles) in order to learn. Only when you are a much stronger player overall will it make sense for you to figure out your specific strengths and weaknesses and go from there.
I like IM Danny's take on the subject: "Players under 2000 don't have a style; they just have weaknesses they're trying to avoid."
isn't that the whole point of a style? whether you are a beginner or a Grand Master. You will be stronger in one area of play and weaker in another and you try to avoid those weaknesses in a game.
This is one of your games. You claim to be an attacking player?
What you need to work on is the basics. Opening Principles, tactics, double checking your moves, and analyzing your losses.
You're not following opening principles.
You're dropping pieces.
You're missing simple tactics.
Forget about labels, and trying to play like certain GM's styles.
FishEyedFools wrote: "... Forget about labels, and trying to play like certain GM's styles."
Did Comman89 refer to "trying to play like certain GM's styles", or is that an alteration by you of the idea under discussion? Also, by the way, are you the one who advised someone to use personal preference when choosing an opening?
"... I understand your 'schtick' is to be confrontational/rude, its been done to death, but i guess everytime its done, the person likes to think they are being original. Welcome to the interwebz!" - FishEyedFools (February 8, 2018)
... You should not be choosing how to play a game to make it more positional or more tactical or whatever. ... Only when you are a much stronger player overall will it make sense for you to figure out your specific strengths and weaknesses and go from there.
"... one simply cannot play the [Najdorf Sicilian] safely without studying the complications and remembering a lot of concrete variations. If you are averse to doing this, or you have a poor memory, you are better off avoiding such lines." - FM Steve Giddins (2003)
... the last "style" you should be trying to play is attacking. ...
If one does not think about style, how can one make that the "last" style one tries to play?
I am taking the Gary Kasparov master class and he said in the intro it is very important to find out your style. ...
(Emphasis added.)
I like opposite side castling games, these to me are the most exciting but its not always possible to get them. Infact I was doing some research yesterday and could not find any variation in the French that led to opposite side castling although I know one exists. I did find one in the Petrof though.
Same in Caro Kann
the point is that one has to choose something and in the absence of empirical evidence preference may be as legitimate a basis as anything else.
maybe this
... This is one of your games. You claim to be an attacking player? ...
"... if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)." - IM Jeremy Silman (January 28, 2016)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/opening-questions-and-a-dream-mate
I like IM Danny's take on the subject: "Players under 2000 don't have a style; they just have weaknesses they're trying to avoid."
isn't that the whole point of a style? whether you are a beginner or a Grand Master. You will be stronger in one area of play and weaker in another and you try to avoid those weaknesses in a game.
This is one of your games. You claim to be an attacking player?
What you need to work on is the basics. Opening Principles, tactics, double checking your moves, and analyzing your losses.
You're not following opening principles.
You're dropping pieces.
You're missing simple tactics.
Forget about labels, and trying to play like certain GM's styles.
i don't know what i am and that was just one of the 5 min games i was experimenting different things with. As said above i am trying to play sharper to improve my tactics.
... when I am playing slow and positionaly I will blunder making bad sacrafices to create space) probably a little emotional and my intuition and calculation may be about even leaning toward the calculating side (dont get a chance to do this in blitz but it shows up in daily chess). I guess But how would you describe solid vs aggressive? ...
It occurs to me that there might be a difficulty with knowing what positional play is. Not sure if I know of a quick way to get a feel for that, but, even without such an understanding, one can still think about how adventurous one wants to be with one's initial opening choices. Perhaps that was what Kasparov was getting at. By the way, I agree with the idea that blitz games are not so good for discovering what one likes. Also, it probably is not important to think a lot about this, but be aware that one's style/tastes may well change as one progresses. Many start with 1 e4 and later become 1 d4 players. Others always stay with 1 e4. Chess improvement involves a lot of work. Perhaps the primary Kasparov idea here is just to try to identify stuff to work on while inspiring you to be enthusiastic about it. You said this style comment was in the introduction. Perhaps subsequent lessons will provide help.
Don't take this as a personal criticism, but at your current level, you are weak in all areas of play. You should not be choosing how to play a game to make it more positional or more tactical or whatever. First, it will not be possible due to much more fundamental weaknesses and mistakes. Second, you need to practice all kinds of positions as much as possible (and solve lots and lots of problems, particularly on tactics and basic endgame principles) in order to learn. Only when you are a much stronger player overall will it make sense for you to figure out your specific strengths and weaknesses and go from there.
What an oxymoron.
... when I am playing slow and positionaly I will blunder making bad sacrafices to create space) probably a little emotional and my intuition and calculation may be about even leaning toward the calculating side (dont get a chance to do this in blitz but it shows up in daily chess). I guess But how would you describe solid vs aggressive? ...
It occurs to me that there might be a difficulty with knowing what positional play is. Not sure if I know of a quick way to get a feel for that, but, even without such an understanding, one can still think about how adventurous one wants to be with one's initial opening choices. Perhaps that was what Kasparov was getting at. By the way, I agree with the idea that blitz games are not so good for discovering what one likes. Also, it probably is not important to think a lot about this, but be aware that one's style/tastes may well change as one progresses. Many start with 1 e4 and later become 1 d4 players. Others always stay with 1 e4. Chess improvement involves a lot of work. Perhaps the primary Kasparov idea here is just to try to identify stuff to work on while inspiring you to be enthusiastic about it. You said this style comment was in the introduction. Perhaps subsequent lessons will provide help.
subsequent lessons thus far have mainly about tactics. I have an idea of positional play but I may be confusing attacking with aggressive positional play.
what the heck?
Positional play is surely the improving of ones position in the absence of sound tactical threats.
... when I am playing slow and positionaly I will blunder making bad sacrafices to create space) probably a little emotional and my intuition and calculation may be about even leaning toward the calculating side (dont get a chance to do this in blitz but it shows up in daily chess). I guess But how would you describe solid vs aggressive? ...
It occurs to me that there might be a difficulty with knowing what positional play is. Not sure if I know of a quick way to get a feel for that, but, even without such an understanding, one can still think about how adventurous one wants to be with one's initial opening choices. Perhaps that was what Kasparov was getting at. By the way, I agree with the idea that blitz games are not so good for discovering what one likes. Also, it probably is not important to think a lot about this, but be aware that one's style/tastes may well change as one progresses. Many start with 1 e4 and later become 1 d4 players. Others always stay with 1 e4. Chess improvement involves a lot of work. Perhaps the primary Kasparov idea here is just to try to identify stuff to work on while inspiring you to be enthusiastic about it. You said this style comment was in the introduction. Perhaps subsequent lessons will provide help.
subsequent lessons thus far have mainly about tactics. I have an idea of positional play but I may be confusing attacking with aggressive positional play.
Tactics are the end result of a strategic plan.
Much like everyone else has said, you don't need to worry about style until you get to ~2000 level. First learn fundamentals of all three phases of the game and work on building up basic tactical competency (avoiding mistakes and taking advantage of your opponent's mistakes). Style has to do with how you apply your personality and creativity to complex positions and overcome high-level resistance. This will not be relevant until you become much stronger and are playing much stronger opponents.