What are the playing styles of the players in this year's Candidates' Tournament?
Well, they each may have their strengths and preferences, but really all today's top players are universal players.
But maybe I don't know enough about this set of players? Maybe someone else can write a few sentences about each?
Carlsen doesn't win a whole lot. But he never loses. It's uncanny. How can a human being be so infallible?
He doesn't take a whole lot of chances. But why should he? It is more interesting, watching his opponents go crazy, looking for some way to beat him.
He also doesn't study openings quite as deeply as others of his calibre. But his opening repetoire is not geared for sharpness, so he can get away with that. The later the game goes, the more dangerous Carlsen becomes. He is an endgame player.
Other than that, I do not really associate anyone else on the roster with a "style." These days, style is considered equivalent to weakness. (Your opponents recognize there's an aspect of your game your weak at, and try to exploit it.)
Most players, going back to Spassky and Fischer, try to avoid having one.
A lot of the players don't have clear styles. I would say that Gelfand is more a positional player though.
Gelfand is underrated. Ivanchuk can go wild at any time. Kramnik is only 1-2
steps behind carlsen in solidity + calculation and has more experience. Svidler is absolutely solid
but unexciting. Aronian may not be hungry enough.
i dont know if you could say 'styles' since top players need to know how to attack when necessarily and play slowly, or deensively when necessary.Though some players will steer the game into certain types of positions, Ivanchuk for one excels in complicated tactical positions, which is why id love to see him play in the WC.
Radjabov due to creativityis capable of a string of wins at any time...
However' Carlsen's strength may undermine the creativity of the
rest of the field. But one wonders if early adversity may shake the
Note that I am speaking in relative terms. Obviously all these guys are the best when considered as a whole. At this level it's hard to speak of a real "style", "strength", or "weakness".
Chessbase has been hosting profiles of the candidates one by one, including their records against each other. I started putting topics with links to the first couple of them, but there seemed no interest. They are still up over there, you may have to go back a couple of pages for the first, which was Svidler, I think.
Today's Super-GMs are all universal players, as waffllemaster suggests. Any of them can end a game with a quick attack or grind down a slightly better ending.
It is not correct to say Carlsen never loses OR that he does not take risks. In fact, most of his losses in the last couple of years happened after he avoided a certain draw to try to win a game. However, he NEVER takes stupid risks or weakens his own position unnecessarily.
Bingo! Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much!