Will Playing Tactically When my Style is Positional Improve my Chess Skill?

Repeatedly? Also, the authors of Journey to the Chess Kingdom?

"... 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

Anyway, if it is okay for these authors to use “style” in this sort of way, why not KingSideInvasion?

Chebyshevv wrote:  You can disagree, in which case we can agree to disagree. I don't really care because I'm confident in this assessment.

Is there any reason for people to be obliged to be in compliance with the confident assessment of Chebyshevv?

To all of you haters .... opinions are just that .... opinions.   They are not absolute truths.   One man's meat is another man's poison.   

mmm...bacon...

Possibly of interest:

"... Though being a chess pro might sound romantic (it certainly did to me when I was young), the romance quickly melts away when you realize that you’re broke, starving, and living in a hovel. Iif you live in America, then you can forgot about health insurance … way, way too expensive. Other than the top 10 or 20 grandmasters, most of the rest will never make a lot of money. As a result, grandmasters usually have to teach chess and write chess books. It wasn’t what they wanted to do when they started out, but when reality hits you in the face, you have to bow to it.

Of course, being a grandmaster and teaching students and writing books isn’t that bad. But you would make far more money and have much more security if you went to university and got a great career. And don’t forget that very few people ever become international masters and grandmasters. Keep in mind that there are 600 million to 800 million chess players in the world and only 1522 grandmasters.

It's not all bad news!

Mr. BeekeeperBob, let’s discuss this in a positive light. I’ve known many very low-rated chess teachers who are absolutely excellent. Teaching is a skill, and even if you’re rated 1500, you might be just what the doctor ordered for children or beginners of any age. …"

https://www.chess.com/article/view/can-anyone-be-an-im-or-gm

"To become a grandmaster is very difficult and can take quite a long time! ... you need to ... solve many exercises, analyse your games, study classic games, modern games, have an opening repertoire and so on. Basically, it is hard work ... It takes a lot more than just reading books to become a grandmaster I am afraid." - GM Artur Yusupov (2013)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/QandAwithArturYusupovQualityChessAugust2013.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2017/05/05/making-a-living-in-chess-is-tough-but-the-internet-is-making-it-easier/#4284e4814850

https://www.chess.com/news/view/is-there-good-money-in-chess-1838
"... Many aspiring young chess players dream of one day becoming a grandmaster and a professional. ... But ... a profession must bring in at least a certain regular income even if one is not too demanding. ... The usual prize money in Open tournaments is meagre. ... The higher the prizes, the greater the competition. ... With a possibly not very high and irregular income for several decades the amount of money one can save for old age remains really modest. ... Anyone who wants to reach his maximum must concentrate totally on chess. That involves important compromises with or giving up on his education. ... it is a question of personal life planning and when deciding it is necessary to be fully conscious of the various possibilities, limitations and risks. ... a future professional must really love chess and ... be prepared to work very hard for it. ... It is all too frequent that a wrong evaluation is made of what a talented player can achieve. ... Most players have the potential for a certain level; once they have reached it they can only make further progress with a great effort. ... anyone who is unlikely to attain a high playing strength should on no account turn professional. ... Anyone who does not meet these top criteria can only try to earn his living with public appearances, chess publishing or activity as a trainer. But there is a lack of offers and these are not particularly well paid. For jobs which involve appearing in public, moreover, certain non-chess qualities are required. ... a relevant 'stage presence' and required sociability. ... All these jobs and existences, moreover, have hanging above them the sword of Damocles of general economic conditions. ... around [age] 40 chess players ... find that their performances are noticeably tailing off. ..." - from a 12 page chapter on becoming a chess professional in the book, Luther's Chess Reformation by GM Thomas Luther (2016)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/LuthersChessReformation-excerpt.pdf

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/world-chess-championship-inside-the-business-of-chess-magnus-carlsen-maurice-ashley-hikaru-nakamura-154502738.html

Hey, I was saving that comment as a reply to you.   lol   

Im never late when it comes to bacon :-)

As far as opinions go, you can't get lower than a non-entity such as yourself. You spam the words of others because you have nothing to say yourself.

I argue my opinions with experience and logic while your highest aspiration is a poor man's Socrates, reposing anything I say as a question.

I really can't even tell if I'm talking to a person or a bot. Honestly I could replace you with a few lines of code and no one could tell the difference.

Do you want to attempt to identify any specific post number as providing a reason for people to be obliged to be in compliance with the confident assessment of Chebyshevv?

I never mentioned compliance at all.

Now bring up something I said (in this topic or elsewhere) at least 24 hours ago to make me believe you're human. If you're not human I'm not going to talk to you anymore.

If you don't want to search I'll make it easy for you: I made a post on the first page of this topic that is 1 day old.

If he replies to this comment, then he has to be human.   You didn't mention his name here.   He does sound like a bot though.   

If he gives an Alexa-like response e.g. "What do you think about at least 24 hours ago to make me believe you're human?"

Then I'm done with him.

Well, if indeed you have no reason for people to be obliged to be in compliance with the confident assessment of Chebyshevv, perhaps you will accept that people do not act in compliance with the confident assessment of Chebyshevv.

Indeed. Happy New Year's guys! As it is, spongey is most definitely the Ultimate anti-bot here on chess.com., in my opinion. Obviously, he's unique in that he rarely gives his own insight using his own words: but provides us with good service words, phrases, links of acknowledged prose. bIn relation to the topic at hand. Informative & helpful in a lot of circumstances. Kudos to him🤙🏼

Indeed. In response to the OP's question ~blitz play does not involve (in my opinion of course) any sort of "style". Just emulate the winning "style" or strategy of the best blitz players. Be aware of certain rules regarding material balance, drawing positions, stalemate, using incremental time to your favor; things like that. Blitz time control is like a MMA match to me, as it is. Being "positional" has little to do with one's blitz prowess. Keep that in mind. Tactical awareness helps but doesn't necessarily improve with blitz because everyone, even the best, miss key tactics in rapid play. Blitz is a free for all. Cross your fingers and Hope to survive kind of deal. It's fun, invigorating. But I certainly wouldn't equate anything like that with affecting one's supposed style: I would think it would have an effect one's ego; which is neither positional or tactical (per se). Anyways, what everyone should strive for, for "style", is to just play the right way. In time, you will realize there are no styles, it just is. ✌🏽

"... 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

There's no such thing as compliance in normal conversation. People disagree and then argue their point. I argued mine, and you seem to have difficulty accepting I have the right to do that.

Meanwhile you continue to fail to argue your point. You quote others not as supporting evidence, but as your whole case.

For example a reasonable person would give this kind of reply:  "John Nunn talks about having style in his book ____ which is aimed at beginners. Therefore I think it's fair to say beginners have style, and at the very least it's unreasonable to attack beginners for claiming they have a style."

And then I might say:  "colloquially yes, beginners have style, and in some sense it's unfair to beginners that so many in this topic have treated that phrasing as a grave sin. Even so, there is a legitimate distinction to be made between style and preference -- between actions borne from knowledge and actions from ignorance."

This is an example of how a normal conversation might develop.

If someone agreed to use "style" as you feel that it should be used, then it seems to me that it would be reasonable to refer to that as compliance. Consequently, if you have told someone else how "style" is used, then it seems to me to be appropriate to wonder if you have a reason for people to be obliged to be in compliance with the confident assessment of Chebyshevv.

Chebyshevv wrote:  ... I argued [my point], and you seem to have difficulty accepting I have the right to do that.

Since you identify no specific sentence as giving you this impression, I am unable to say much about your misperception.

Chebyshevv wrote:  ... I might say:  "... in some sense it's unfair to beginners that so many in this topic have treated that phrasing as a grave sin. Even so, there is a legitimate distinction to be made between style and preference -- between actions borne from knowledge and actions from ignorance." ...

KingSideInvasion was considering opening choice. If it is okay for GM John Nunn (and others) to refer to "style" in connection with that subject, then I fail to see any reason for KingSideInvasion to be in compliance with your views on distinctions to be made.  You can make such distinctions if you like, but I do not see how it helps with the question concerning the choice of openings for KingSideInvasion.

I'm going to say no. Playing purely tactical in a headless chicken kind of way won't help your overall understanding and won't make you a better player. Keep playing the way you are, you'll still face tactical complications. If you feel like playing a sharper game then go ahead.

Tactical sharpness comes and goes but it's the true understanding of chess that stays. 

Compliance is a poor choice of words because it implies there is no mutual agreement. In a proper discussion people are free to present their ideas and justifications. I have ideas and justifications that you demean by using the word compliance, and that is one of the reasons why I say you seem to have a problem with me stating my opinion.

---

As for all the people whining about word choice not being useful for KingSideInvasion, I agree. You'll notice on the first page, post #8, I gave advice I thought was helpful without quibbling about word choice.

A day later though, after I feel like good advice has been given, I'm willing (here and other places) to go off topic and talk about other things, but certainly I agree with your point that these semantic tirades aren't helpful to anyone.