I would say that I have become a much more well rounded player as I have improved, and I have a lot more appreciation for the different types of positions that can occur. Up until I was about 1600, I knew basically no openings, and just played the four knights or scotch game pretty much every game. I therefore I was only used to playing a very limited number of positions.
When I first learned about the sicilian dragon (Amazingly, I had gotten to 1600 and had never even heard of the sicilian defence before) I was hooked by the dynamic play and tactics involved. Then when I got to 1800 I learned about the Kings Indian defence (once again, I'm amazed I got to 1800 without having heard of many standard openings) and was equally hooked. At 1800 I hit a plateu, and in order to progress, needed to learn how to play lots of other types of positions. So once I got to 2000, I was a much, much more well rounded player, knew the general ideas many more openings and types of positions.
Hello,
I wanted a quick survey of out of the gate attackers and how one's chess changes after first learning or seriously studying the game. I became interested in this after noting that Carlsen was apparently an attacker as a young master, Caruana claims he attacked mostly when he was first getting serious about the game, and realizing how much these two have changed. Of course, top-level chess is a different animal from amateur chess, given how much defensive technique has improved, but it is the case, nevertheless, that when you invest in chess over an extended period of time, your preferences change. I for one, was kind of aggressive a few years ago, then I started studying endgames and learned to appreciate that kind of beauty, and back and forth and back and forth... what about you?
chessman