Karpov was like a boa constrictor. Ever tightening grip gained from small increments. He may be deemed as a very "boring" player. But I really draw inspiration from both.
While Tal was --dunno- intuitive? He had flashes of insight and made leaps of faith moves, sometimes from sacrifices that may deem to be premature.
From my limited observation of course!
Karpov was like a boa constrictor.
Love the analogy.
But yeah I kinda see what you're saying! I know what it's like to be impulsive in chess (I'm crazy impulsive), but I'm having a hard time imagining a move made intuitively. I suppose that comes with experience, though.
When there's a choice, it's what a player often chooses that determines their style.
I think it's useful to emphasize that there are attacking games from Karpov and Petrosian and there are quiet technical wins from Tal and Kasparov. They were well rounded players who would beat you with whatever type of winning position you gave them. But when these players had a choice to continue one way or another, that's when they defined their style.
An easy example could be a middlegame to endgame transition. Sometimes you have a choice to stay in the middlegame by keeping pieces on, and trying to get value out of your trumps there (lets say you have a bishop pair and space). Or you can trade some material and try to win with endgame trumps (lets say by trading the bishops you damage their structure and will have the more active rook).
When there's a choice, it's what a player often chooses that determines their style.
I think it's useful to emphasize that there are attacking games from Karpov and Petrosian and there are quiet technical wins from Tal and Kasparov. They were well rounded players who would beat you with whatever type of winning position you gave them. But when these players had a choice to continue one way or another, that's when they defined their style.
An easy example could be a middlegame to endgame transition. Sometimes you have a choice to stay in the middlegame by keeping pieces on, and trying to get value out of your trumps there (lets say you have a bishop pair and space). Or you can trade some material and try to win with endgame trumps (lets say by trading the bishops you damage their structure and will have the more active rook).
That...actually makes perfect sense. Thanks! I personally hadn't reviewed a lot of their games prior to making this post, but I can see how the patterns arise.
speaking about styles i think it's not fair to say that a certain player has a certain style because
he played certain number of games in a certain way, there should be a way first to make sure that this really is his style and second to discuss this style,as to karpov he almost had no style, at least this is my opinion, Tal was a genius and that made him have very creative approach to chess
that we might call a style or might not.
Some great players, past and present, are stylistically hard to pin down. Lasker comes to mind. Euwe once remarked that, though he admired Lasker immensely, he found it hard to learn from Lasker's games since there is nothing distinctive about his style. Lasker was a very universal player who was comfortable with any kind of game. He could attack brilliantly. He could defend as tenaciously as anyone in history. He could play methodical tidy Tarrasch style chess. He could play crazy chess in bizarre positions with material imbalances and weird pawn structures. Anything and everything.
Some great players, past and present, are stylistically hard to pin down. Lasker comes to mind. Euwe once remarked that, though he admired Lasker immensely, he found it hard to learn from Lasker's games since there is nothing distinctive about his style. Lasker was a very universal player who was comfortable with any kind of game. He could attack brilliantly. He could defend as tenaciously as anyone in history. He could play methodical tidy Tarrasch style chess. He could play crazy chess in bizarre positions with material imbalances and weird pawn structures. Anything and everything.
So a jack-of-all-trades? That's neat. Imma have to look at some of his games.
Nunn's Chess Course is a good place to start since he focuses on Lasker's games.
Nunn's Chess Course is a good place to start since he focuses on Lasker's games.
Oh sweet, thanks!
I've been pondering this for a while, what exactly constitutes a certain type of player, especially at a high level of play? For example, one would hear Karpov was a very 'positional' player, while Tal was very 'aggressive'. Both are considered the best of the best, so, openings aside, what in the way Karpov plays determines that he is a 'positional' player?
I'd love to hear your thoughts. :) Apologies if this is a noobish and/or downright stupid question.
Tal would often sacrifice huge sums of material, for speculative attacks and insane complications.
Karpov almost never sacrificed anything he wasn't getting back 4 moves later. And would beat his opponents slowly, grinding them down like a boa constrictor.
Kasparov often put a lot of work into his openings, chosing the sharpest variations, attempting to beat his opponents from move one.
Carlsen by coparison puts very little effort into his openings, often happily handing black easy equality when he is playing the white pieces. But then, he often capitalizes on some mistake from his opponent later, and nurses that into a win in the endgame.
If you are looking for your own style, I would say, win positionally, lose tactically.
Much less frustrating than doing it the other way.
I've been pondering this for a while, what exactly constitutes a certain type of player, especially at a high level of play? For example, one would hear Karpov was a very 'positional' player, while Tal was very 'aggressive'. Both are considered the best of the best, so, openings aside, what in the way Karpov plays determines that he is a 'positional' player?
I'd love to hear your thoughts. :) Apologies if this is a noobish and/or downright stupid question.