Ideas on how to "sharpen" my style?

Hello everyone.

I have had a problem lately with being too "boring." This problem stems from my tendency to avoid risk and fancying myself as some "positional player" in the sense of Capablanca or Petrosian. Obviously, given that I'm just some beginner, this desire to be a positional player can only be detrimental. I wish to sharpen my "style"(whatever that means), as in, I wish to play more unbalanced positions. I don't wish to strive for hair-raising and head-spinning complications in the sense of Tal, but I do want lopsided positions, with a delicate mix of tactics and strategy. I wanted to know tips on how to do this. I believe a natural starting point for this is the openings. I know that memorizing opening variations is generally useless for a player of my level, but I wish for you all to recommend just a few openings and some basic ideas that can lead to unbalanced positions. I would also like ideas for developing an "eye" for such positions, because I know that even the most boring openings can lead to sharp positions. I would also like to know if anyone else has this problem.

Thanks!

chessman1504

Push your pawns excessively.

Too many pawn pushes leave too many weaknesses in their wake. Pawn pushes and pawn storms can be a good idea in the right context, especially with opposite side castling games, but in several more instances, can only weaken the position when faced with the correct defense.

try pushing your major peices to to squares that your opponent can not eisily kick out your pieces and try to make him or her as unconfortable as possible (moving your peices not facial exprecion or conversation) and the moves will come to you if you have a good chess instint and you get a gut feeling about a move that feels good go with it if not experiment with different moves on here after all online chess ratings do not affect your otb rating.

No surprise your games are boring with such way of thinking.

You don't need to push your pawns only against opposite side's king. You can also push elsewhere. Perhaps you can try to choose openings in which you often get pawn majority on one side and try to exploit that. Moving your pieces and pawns into opponent's territory is always great fun.

Hence, pushing pawns always contributes to excitement in chess games. Here I have an example of my recent game, where I pushed pawn, despite not having a majority. I even managed to get two connected pass pawns somehow, which would have easily won me the game, even if he didn't blunder in the end.

I'm not convinced that's the best example, given that the opponent was about 300 points below you. I suppose it's an interesting idea. Here's a game of Ivanchuk's where the queenside pawn mass "rules the day." Nonetheless, I believe your statement to "push pawns excessively" to be too general to be of use. Also, bear in mind I said "too many." I never doubted that pawn pushes could be a good idea.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1060586

Heres a fun game that I some how one when I first started playing still not sure how I did it

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=22492624

Sacrifice more pieces.

Coach Heisman commented on one of his shows that gambits were the quickest ways to get an attack going  since at anything under 1600 a pawns difference means little even if you get to an endgame.  I'm too chicken myself but you might want to give it a try.  You may not win, but your games won't be boring!

... general ...

Perhaps that's an idea. Any recommendations?

Just a warning: pushing pawns is safer than giving away pawns for a compensation you can't exploit.

The Evans Gambit seems pretty popular and is almost a  rite of passage for attacking players.  Like I said, I'm old and timid but it might work for you.  Too bad you're not diamond; there was a wonderful video series on it a while back that almost convinced me to try it.  I'm sure you can find something on Youtube though...

EDIT  There have been around 40 threads on the Evans if you want to do a "forum search".  Might be a good place to start...

I find sacking pawns for a better position to be beneficial but then again what do I know I'm horrible at chess.

Why not little things, like being less hesitant to accept doubled pawns if it will give you an open file and they can't be easily attacked, giving up the bishop pair if you can get good squares for your knight etc. It's hard to advise without seeing games (not that I'd be able to advise well with games).

Dude. I've played you a few times in 30 min live chess and a couple things i remember - you played a caro-kann against me but retreated the white squared bishop back to d7 after g4 and in another game i went for French defence and you played 2.d3. After these choices i felt i had the 'right' to be on the attack. I think just have a more positive and aggressive mindset and you will be more successful. Its much more difficult, especially in live chess, to play cautiously.

Gambits are of course the quickest way to sharpen your game, but there is a critical distinction between playing openings such as the Vienna or King's Gambit and playing trash such as the Latvian. 

Choose your gambits carefully, don't choose lines that can be refuted with a day of study. You want to choose openings that you can use more than once against the same opponent.

Be less materialistic perhaps - don't be afraid of being "down on points" (I know I used to think like this).

But really, you need to post some games for the answers that suit you.

I don't see something wrong with your play, apart from improper positional understanding- which is common at your level, and nothing to worry about... you can fix it by more study, and playing more games/ gathering experience.

I was more puzzled by this game:

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=72071474

You resigned in a position where black has an easy draw, and he doesn't have to find "only moves"- he can draw in many ways.

More than that, Black is actually winning after 24...a5, but here good calculation is required- nobody would blame you for missing it.

Hehe, I was "trying" to follow theory with the Caro-Kann. It was from an Anand game I saw. I should have eventually pushed c5 though. And with the other game, I was trying a King's Indian attack type of formation, since I saw it in a Fischer game. :)  But, I understand that attitude is everything, especially with "sharpening" my style. Examples of "boring" games will come soon enough.