Some People Say I Play Like Tal: Is this true?

I was inspired(!) by the topic of reincarnation in one of the other threads. Now I'm not usually one to brag but I think I am quite the player. Some people tell me that I play like Tal(Though that line of inquiry is often spurious at best). If I did, play like Tal, I would have to be quite the tactician(which I am not!), and honestly would probably be a lot stronger than I am currently am. Nonetheless, the people must decide(and of course anyone reading this is "the people"). Without further ado, a selection of my games!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are obviously a good player and the wins look superficially good but we need help properly understanding the Tal-like combinations.

Please provide more detailed analysis of the combinations and show the computer refutations to your play, if any. (As I understand it, a Tal combination would many times be unsound but not be refuted over the board.)

 

 

wow whatta game

I would argue that "tal-like" is not about soundness or lack thereof, nor is it even about tactics. Tal-ness is about efficiency. People talk about Tal's sacrifices but what they don't talk about is his quick maneuvering, which is highly economical. His pieces are everywhere, and they seek to occupy all empty squares such that they become very active. There is a saying that "Tal's knights are faster". Another aspect of Tal is that he sought highly unclear positions. You can see in my first game a Najdorf, a sort of Tal-knight-maneuver. Also there is the aesthetic quality of my games that lends themselves to Tal-ness. Hope this helps!

[COMMENT DELETED]

rmanthony wrote: I agree with notmtwain. It is my understanding that whnced players use terms such as "Tal-like", the are referring to Tal's ability to to come up with complicated tactics involving sacrifices that are very difficult for his opponent to refute OTB, but are often found to be unsound when analyzed post game. Anyway, that is my understanding, though I may be wrong. I am curious to know what others think.

Here is one of Tal's most famous games versus Botvinnik.

 

 

Tal like could also mean you just play wild and crazy tactics. I played a game once, where a NM once, though he didn't exactly call me Tal like, but compared me to be more like Tal, than Capablanca, in that game, mainly because of my bishop sac. It was actually a text book sac though, and really shouldn't be considered Tal like in the slightest, however, if you had to pick between which two grandmasters, Tal would be the one to pick, for that game, not like I play like any of them we where just saying I should learn to play more like capablanca, at least that is why the NM even mentioned Capablanca. Anyway, on to the point....

The point is, there is no point I am just relating tal like to something out of my life LOL. To answer your question though. I can get a fell for how someone might call you Tal like, though there really isn't anything spectacular about your chess. In the games where you saced to win your opponent just blundered away the game. In the game I talked about earlier, my sac was at least sound, and text book, so not tal, but it just seems you watched too much king crusher and just tried to hack your opponent to death in the first game, the only game that is somewhat Tal like, not in The traditional sense of the term that notmarktwain gave us, but more along the lines of a beginner learning hack attacking nature like Kingcrusher that is only mistaken as Tal like... keep in mind I am only talking about the first game. The last game isn't interesting at all because your opponent missed an easy tactic, though we all win games like that at our level, it's just not much to brag about, simply because at our level non of us are really good but at the same time we can be hard to beat so given another game that same guy could have been considered "Tal like" "just because he sacced a piece to checkmate you." In a theoretical second game with your last opponent of course. What I am saying is that at our level if we play someone at the same level winning is a coin flip, unless you greatly improve your game though training, and then you will just start playing better people and again it will be a coin flip, not at all Tal like... but I see what they are saying, though as I said, they are mistaking a kingcrusher wanna be for a person who plays like Tal. Not that I myself don't hack attack ever. I have been known to hack attack in desperation, and sometimes even pull off a win like you did out of luck, that is the name of the game!

In short only one game could be considered "Tal like" and it wasn't, it was more of an amateurish hack attack.

I don't need to be spectacular against the opponents on this website, they are far too weak. As for the first game, do you really think that my opponent just blundered away the game? He did but, you might find the position more complicated than it first appears.

You'd be surprized.  There are a lot of good players on this site, even at our level.  I get what your saying though, sometimes you just get people that don't play well and it shows.  It happens all the time, even away from chess.com.  Hiding behind the blanket statement, that "All chessplayers on chess.com are weak," I wouldn't consider tal like btw...

 

Anyway, yes I do believe your opponent blundered away the game.  on move 24 as black he played Kf8, the worst possible move ever because it doesn't protect his bishop and it allows you to capture his bishop with check giving you a common mate sequence with the queen and the rook.  Kg6 was the move your opponent missed under time pressure probably.  You don't have enough time to do anything because your rook is hanging if you see the tactic... simple check and take in two moves.  I gather you could protect my moving your king over one space but then you will lose your sting and give him time to recoup.  After quickly reviewing the board I see that that defense doesn't work.  I'm not going to bother to analyize the game any futher as you yourself apparently didn't even bother to analyze this game yourself to find out that the king on move 24 blundered away the game and that your little sacs actually would not have worked had your opponent didn't blunder away the game on move 24.  I think your opponent had a defeatest mindset and let himself lose tbh because I can't figrue out why he would make such a bad move otherwise.  Unless you where playing a fast game and he was undertime pressure, would make sense, then I would have to commend you for playing the clock well!  Even so, posting a time pressure win and putting it up for consideration to be "tal like" is... well, wrong, simply put, you don't become a GM at blitz, and I think all the games people are talking about how Tal played, well like tal, where not time pressure games, unless you think having 30 minutes to think at the last hour of a 5 hour game is time pressure, because that is the sort of time pressure classical players face, not this 5 minute blitz stuff, which some say isn't real chess to begin with.

OMG... it's true! Your play is uncannilly similar to that of the great Mikhail Tal! With that kind of play you could be the next world champion (and the greatest internet blitz player of all time)!

Here is another game I played just now, I thought it to be emblematic of my style.

 

 

Wow! That was nice: Tal versus Alekhine!!! Ahahaha

Completely correct, but Tal was possessed of a divine gift called God Sight. Basically, it gave his intuition incredible powers of calculation and also allowed him to predict in what lines his opponents would blunder. At his peak the God Sight allowed Tal to "see" something like 20 ply deep instantaneously. His intuition would evaluate certain lines from it. This is what allowed him to do what he did.

See I think differently, I think it is a trait of someone who is a Magician.

 First off, I said move 24 not move 23, but we'll go with that regardless.

 

Your computer analysis is faulty.  On move 31 for black the best move is not Rxc2, it's Rf5+ then win the queen for a rook.  Nice try

 

As I said, the position you gave wasn't even the position I was talking about in the game, but it was close enough, and I think I've shown your computer to be faulty.  Even so, if you take the position I was talking about, white does have a shot for perpetual, but it's only a perpetual, not a win, hence, not, tal-like.  If white doesn't go for the perpetual in the continuation I am talking about then black wins hands down easily to a force mating sequence.

not quiet sure

I didn't use a computer to analyze those lines, those were calculations during the game silly

I think you are correct, actually, the game is drawn with correct play. Such is the way of chess! I merely wanted to try to get something more, that sweet 1-0! But ehm, are you completely aware of how Tal played? Most of his conceptions were faulty...with perfect play. I would say the fact that it is drawn at the end of the day is completely tal-like. I'm sure if you know anything about Tal you'll agree.

 

EDIT: I did not use your line because it loses immediately to Qf5+, winning a the DSB and likely getting mated.

You're full of it!