Ideas on how to "sharpen" my style?

I dun like the way you type :P

Also as to boring chess, this was one of the types of tools I used early on when working with s mentor due to severe ADHD. My teacher had me look at the games of Tigran Petrosian, Vasily Smyslov, and Pal Benko. Now while I can roll s player up with attacks and tactical play if they play a weak or inferior move in the opening or early middle game, I tend to strangle the life out of many positions. Benko had a great maxim to this effect when he said do in twenty moves what you can do in two. Were talking

Neat! I might look into that.

I like the Queen's Gambit and am especially interested in games in which the QP becomes isolated. I have been studying those games since the IQP occurs in many games and makes for exciting chess!

About a guy that walked into Petrosian's playground and strangled wins out of positions against a player many considered the best at this exact type of play. If you have the advantage but just going for the throat still gives the opposition chances, why not grind it all to a halt and eliminate his ability to do anything but watch his position collapse right before his eyes.

Try to remember if you will these two ideas:

1. The object of chess is of course to win if possible but for the most part is refuting the opponents ideas. Sharp play therefore can and is a double edged sword.

2. Every move you make as well as your opponents, gains something but also gives up something. The trick us to strive to get more from the move than you give up.

At it's core, chess is one of the ultimate examples of critical thinking. You cannot be fooled by absolutes (there really are none), must learn to use all pieces equally, and understand when to go for the kill and when to either consolidate material and position or simply attend to those threats which ate greater than the ones you create and then resume your plan. In this way, one of two things tends to occur. First your chances of winning by getting the attack in are greater and second, if no advantage presents itself, consolidating allowed you to protect material and structure and can make your opponent weaken his position.

Lastly, those who take care of their pawns find the pawns will take care of them. If I have two pawn islands and my opponent has three, then likely I hold a winning position, provided one of the islands is not s passed pawn duo. Andrew Soltis has a great book on this that is easy to read. Hans Kmoch has a book as well but it is a bit more complex.

I might recommend a book for you though by Vucovik (misspelling) called The Art of Attack in Chess. Also Jacob Aagaard wrote some good books as well but they seem geared to the 1800-2200 USCF tournament player.

Regardless, keep playing and eventually the needs of positions you get into will force you to round out your style. Sort of like an MMA fighter who is a master at wrestling going up against a guy who is proficient in many styles. My money would go to the guy who understands the fundamentals of many facets versus the guy who is an expert at one or two aspects of the game.

That's simply BS.  Your average opponents are more than 100+ points BELOW you, at both STANDARD and BULLET.  In Blitz, they are roughly the same as your rating.

Your game, at all speeds is LAZY.  If it wasn't, your winning percentage would be higher.  If you can only play Blitz speeds at 1200-1300 strength then your game is weak, and you are LAZY.

And the evidence is reflected in your game record.  Q.E.D.

So get off your arse and study the Royal Game.  At minimum, put a 5 second bonus into all your time controls, and learn how to convert endgames.  On balance, it's just a question of acquiring the necessary chess knowledge.  Put a plus and minus 150 point range on your "open seeks," and get with the program.

So you play and beat opponents rated 900 to 1200 in blitz??  BFD.

Very simple.  End of Story.

@zborg - I looked at your blitz stats and apparently you can only play blitz at 1600 strength, against an average opponent of less than 1550? That's just weak play. Oh, and LAZY (If it wasn't, you would be winning more, wouldn't you?).

My recommendation to zborg is that he gets off his arse and studies the Royal Game.

I play with the same "open seek" as described above.  My winning percentage ((wins + draws) / total games)) is between 55 and 60 percent for Blitz and Standard.  Q.E.D.

Either you can't read @Waller, or your math "undegrad training" is just beginning.  

I'm not interested what seek you put out, just as you weren't interested in what seek chessman1504 put out (can you manage to find it in the text?)

Also, your winning percentage is far lower than mine, hence weak.

Yawn.  Having a tough time with those freshman courses?  Apparently.

And you're 400 points weaker at Standard Chess, @Waller.  BFD.

Great avatar too.  Is it titled -- Bullet Junkie in the Shade?

Have Nice Day.  You deserve it, and worked hard for it.  

LOL @Waller.+1. In all seriousness, I found that until I changed my seeks in the game, I was losing mainly due to disinterest, which a FM friend of mine concurred with watching both my long game and blitz games. At the + 200 ratings criteria, I literally had to learn to play good solid chess to hold with them. As a result, though my rating loses average is higher than wins or draws, my w/l/d percentage in online is slowly equalizing, resulting in a better pool to look over to notice deficiencies and be able to take corrective action. Overall, my play and understanding of things with the game us slowly deepening as well. However, cherry picking opponents by stating at our near my ratings actually became a detriment to my play. Guessing that after all the studying is done and over with, the only way to get better is to play better chess against better people after all.

And from sharpening play to daggers in ad hominem fashion? Must be Wednesday at chess.com after all.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/mcgrew27.pdf a good read for using gambits for this.

Lol, good job on managing to locate the discipline I barely ever play. Must have taken some effort.

Also, I'm not in my "freshman" year, so your post kinda confuses me (I assume it was an attempt to carry on the great humour of your previous post).

@Bill_C: Indeed, from playing against stronger players and seeing how they beat you, you can not only find the deficiencies in your own play, but also analyse your opponent's ideas and look at which moves he made that you didn't see, and why you didn't see them (eg.miscalculation/evaluation error etc.)

And you're 400 points weaker at Standard Chess, @Waller.  BFD.

Great avatar too.  Is it titled -- Bullet Junkie in the Shade?  

*[Just in case you can't read, as well as do maths.]

@chessman1504: later today, I will attempt to post some games that highlight some of the ideas presented in the thread that might help you to better understand sharp play, positional play, imbalances and just simply solid chess play so that in seeing the concepts on a board, you can perhaps discover ways to integrate what is being discussed not just as a concept, but rather a component to your own playing style. Think of it from this perspective, as a musician and composer, I love Jazz and bluegrass but will likely never be another Freddie Green or Jerry Douglas. I can however integrate certain aspects of the theory associated with both styles into my existing style of playing to create a distinctive form that bests sits my current ability and later, should I choose to deepen that understanding, then the work in those fundamentals will make for a more solid repertoire later on. Just an idea.

Whats wrong with being a positional player?

Thanks, Waller. My prevailing philosophy with anything of competition is that barring augmentation, whether an engine, steroids or the like, it all comes down to us my skull set as good or better than the opponent? If it is, I will have a good chance to in the match. If not, then the converse is more likely. However, if I win or lose us inconsequential in the long run so long as I can take something away from the learning experience. True, I might get ticked of at a loss for a bit but I just keep playing since if I learn from the loss, it is still a win in my book. So if at say 1500, I lose to an 1800 but learn from why I lost, then next time I face the situation, I may do better, perhaps even win against the next 1800 or higher. Something like the any given Sunday idea for football.