Have no desire.
The problems of picking a chess hero
Sort:
Well, richb8888, I'll just have to admit it: comments don't get any more zen than what you just said! 
But seriously, while I'm contemplating these pearls of wisdom, I could also use some explanations and exact suggestions (as I've already written here, but it seems it needs to be properly stressed after all; in the words of Jack White, "Well I've said it once before, but it bears repeating (now)")!
...Seriously, any exact suggestions, with explanation why they work as such? Here, by providing some additional information about my own thinking on this subject, I hope I'll be able to help you help me help us all (kudos to whoever gets at least one of the two very similar references I just parodied ):
- First of all, I've probably played every fianchetto and double fianchetto variation in theoretical existence, save for the queenside fianchetto defences against 1. e4 (which do often transpose to the Hippo and the likes, and I can also play those), the Grobs and other dubious flights of freeform fantasies. I also pretty much feel equally at home with any of the Benoni, Dutch and Indian structures (including the Lion systems) and their hybrids, from either side of the board. Apart from all these, I like playing non-c4 Queen's Pawn openings and 1. e4 gambits as White, I really like the square-based strategies like in the Gurgenidze system of the Modern/Caro-Kann hybrid, I've also got a history of meddling with the Scandinavian and the Alekhine, and I very explicitly do NOT move my e-pawn on the first move against 1. e4 or 1. d4 (but I can reconsider it if I happen to not get many (problems in the) Sicilian Alapin transpositions while I experiment with the Franco-Benoni).
- Having the above paragraph in mind, I think it's safe enough to say that the majority of the openings I play didn't really come into their own until Zurich 1953, so I should probably be looking for a chess hero starting from the beginning of the Soviet Era. How far to the future should I travel from there? Right up to the point where elite chess mainstream gets too theoretical, what with Fischer's legitimate use of Najdorf Poisoned Pawn and all, for example. Although I'm not really sure, it might even be safe to go up to some particular point during Kasparov's reign and only stop then.
- I think it's quite evident by now that I'm keen on avoiding heavy theory, so that excludes power play preparationists like Geller, Bronstein, Keres, Korchnoi and the likes. Botvinnik fiddled with the Dutch, so that might be of use. Tal was always an unbridled out-of-control creative delight, along with Nezhmetdinov. Smyslov and Petrosian had unique positional senses, that can't be bad at all. Spassky was a remarkably all-around player, and Andersson is the epitome of ultimate solidity and technique, if a bit dry.
- Nevertheless, I think that Bent Larsen is the correct choice for me, if anyone needs to be singled out. That much is obvious from his fighting attitude and legendary innovative opening ideas, and is especially fitting when one compares his opening repertoire with mine.
...So, basically, I just found the answer I was looking for? Well, yes and no. I'd still like to hear your opinions. What about players like Ivanchuk and Miles, for example? Anyone modern like that? Anyone or anything else? And why?
May 18, 2015
0
#5
In response to the OP, here's my take on having "Idols".
When you are low rated, you should study the games of a player from the pre-1950 time period. It has nothing to do with mimicking their openings. It's to learn basic principles of chess and getting a consistent perspective from one day to the next. Capablanca is not Lasker. Alekhine is not Euwe. When you go to school, and you take Algebra 1 in the 8th grade, do you have 50 different teachers teaching you the subject over the course of the 180 days? No, you have one teacher with an occasional substitute teaching the subject. Consistency matters when learning.
When you get to the point of studying openings, one person won't do. If you try to mimic and player without taking your own style into consideration, you run into the problem of rating difference. An 1800 player should not be trying to parrot a 2850 player like Kasparov. You need to determine for your own self what openings lead to the style of play that you can make sense out of. Research every opening, try each one out, see which ones you are comfortable with. Then, for each opening you play, look for a GM that plays it regularly. This is different than finding one GM to encompass your entire repertoire. Your list of GM's to study might look something like this:
Kasparov vs 1.e4 (Perhaps you are an avid Najdorf Player)
Glek vs 1.d4 (Perhaps you are a fan of the e6-lines of the Dutch)
Kramnik as White (Perhaps you like to play 1.Nf3 with transpositions to QP openings while avoiding the Grunfeld and Nimzo-Indian)
Here, instead of trying to mock one player, you realize that while your White game might match that of Kramnik's doesn't mean that your style of play as Black is going to necessarily be the same as Kramnik's. Just because styles overlap in one area doesn't mean they overlap everywhere? While my biggest passion is chess, I also am a tournament Bridge player, an avid Football and Baseball fan (Pro, not college), and have other preferences like Chocolate Ice Cream or the color Blue. Does that mean that every chess player enjoys Bridge, Football, Baseball, Chocolate Ice Cream and the color Blue? Aboslutely not! So why would you try to completely mock one GM? Just because you and said GM play the same defense to 1.e4 doesn't mean you do play the same game of chess, copying each other's moves to the end!
As far as picking a player to study, I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, as long as one doesn't get too obsessive about trying to imitate someone else. However, rather than just picking a hero based on image or by some other random characteristic, I think it's important to pick someone who you can easily understand.
The first player I ever became seriously interested in was Petrosian after I read in one of Seirwan's books that he was arguably the hardest player in history to beat. At the time, I was losing a lot, so I wanted to be like that guy! I bought several annotated collections of his games, but I found I couldn't really grasp the logic behind his moves. I just wasn't yet at a level where I could really follow his train of thought and I'm still not several years later.
However, one of the books I bought also included many of Spassky's games and I discovered quite by accident that his style seems very clear and natural to me. When I play Chess Solataire, aka "guess the move", for whatever reason, I can usually predict his moves or at least figure out why he makes the choices he does. I'm sure at some point I'll play through Petrosian's games again, but for now, I feel like I'm learning more with less effort by studying Spassky's games.
For players who are exploring different chess styles and who want to study master games, this is the way I would recommend going about it. Play through some games of several candidates, then choose whichever master you seem most in synch with.
ThrillerFan wrote:
When you are low rated, you should study the games of a player from the pre-1950 time period. It has nothing to do with mimicking their openings. It's to learn basic principles of chess and getting a consistent perspective from one day to the next.
Actually, this is what my question is all about. (Sorry for taking so much time to reply, I've been really busy lately!)
Suppose I'm a low-rated player. (I really am, though. I've hardly ever crossed the 1900-mark on any online live chess website whatsoever.) How can I get a truly consistent perspective (and I really do understand that this perspective, or "the method", as Lasker called it, should be what we strive for as the truth in chess; a constant throughout all chess evolution, written in the depths of the game mechanics themselves and remaining forever unchanged under the same rules) when the new resources constantly being found in positions of any age by chess engines (the best of which are currently able to top seemingly anything we'll be able to mentally grasp and apply for decades to come, if not centuries) laughing mad in the face of our rationally exact principles and overturning positional verdicts far and wide, change the understanding of the game so much that the practical value of the cornerstones that the masters of old had set in chess long ago - is completely lost?
Take any Poisoned Pawn Variation, for example. You can even stick with the one in the Sicilian Najdorf, I'm sure it's the first one that comes to mind anyway. Back when Fischer used to rack up points with it, it could've been simply argued that his mind was superior to those of his opponents, and while those wins might've not been forced from the start (meaning that there had been an awareness of many, many unexplored variations remaining from one or more branching points in the analysis tree which make the ultimate truth of the given variation still unknown, and thus the ultimate verdict on it still out there), it could've been said that the chess knowledge went as far as the capacity of the human mind itself, so as long as the human mind stayed limited enough not to encompass the entire vastness of chess, the variation in question would be playable, and you could have hopes of shreds of real significance still remaining in the now already ancient rule - no, a good guideline, an educated suggestion, a tried, tested and (once upon a time easily) proven principle - of not bringing your Queen out too early, especially if it's (only) for the sake of grabbing (petty) material.
But now it's different. If a computer plays the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn, who can beat it anyway? Who can ever hope to prove its supposedly risky choice(s) wrong? It's become virtually impossible! As chess stands today, there are virtually no noticeable computer mistakes that a human player armed only with his natural mind can take advantage of. No rational method can help anymore, only having godlike intuition could win - or even remotely stand up - against that.
Has admitting chess engines as superior to ourselves and looking up to them for help become our definitive method of truly advancing in chess skill? I think it might be so for many, but not for (quite interestingly) some of the greatest players of the Scandinavian origin, like Andersson, Larsen and Carlsen. Okay, Andersson might stick out here because he's usually content with a dead draw and practically never compromises the solidity qualities of his moves in order to win (which perhaps makes his ambitions better suited for playing against computers?), but the latter two stand out with their fighting spirits, each of them having found a way through some supposedly less apparent weaknesses in their peers' chess understanding. In the end, it's about having an adequate practical approach for the times at hand, whether it's satisfaction with the perceived ultimate objective balance in the position, dissatisfaction with it due to creative and bloodthirsty competitive reasons, or the realisation that some of the greatest dangers lie in the theoretical positions that are just "equal" or "okay".
In any case, for you vehement TL;DR-ers, there is just something that offends me in using a chess engine to decide on your own moves. I think one's play should be one's own responsibility, as well as the result of one's own mental efforts only. I think relying on an outer mechanism to do what your raw processing naturally should might be economical, but it's ultimately like a man taking pills to ease his unfortunate condition, yet never quite getting rid of it, and using the medication as a crutch instead of looking into his own soul for the definitive solution of his real problem.
And yes, The_Vision, if a player wins games and you can feel the logic behind his success, then you've got yourself a good role model! 
I didn't read everything you wrote ('cause you wrote a ton), but here's my 2 cents, based on what I picked up on:
You seem to be a bit obsessed with openings and computer analysis. I think you make a good point about there being an 'understanding gap' that might make it difficult for amateurs to follow what's happening in the games of more recent top-level players (i.e. Kasparov, Anand, Carlsen). So, it would seem to make sense for amateurs like us to start out with a more historical 'hero' that maybe plays in a more accessible and straightforward fashion - perhaps Morphy, Blackburne, Marshall?
Imo, your point about the opening lines those guys played being 'obsolete' by today's standards is a bit irrelevant for us amateurs. Frankly, we shouldn't even be worrying about openings much at our level, given there's a fair chance that someone's going to hang some material or mess up the endgame. You could play the King's Gambit/Latvian/Scandinavian/Birds (whatever) in every game and you'd probably do fairly well, as most people won't be that familiar with them.
I've already seen several role model-related threads on this forum, but I've got a feeling that none of 'em addressed the issue seriously enough.
Sure, on the surface it seems simple enough: just pick a very strong player whose playing style inspires you. (Heck, my own username is a portmanteau based off of this consideration alone!) But there can be several problems with this overly simplistic approach if you're not an absolute beginner and want to realistically improve:
1. Understanding gap. Even though you're completely bedazzled by all those fireworks and unexpected moves, you might not have the mental means to even know how to set them up (when it's actually possible!), let alone get around to performing them in a real game. Often enough, you won't even be able to comprehend why the losing player resigned in the given final position, because you don't see and don't know how "the rest is just a matter of technique".
2. Theoretical gap. The real brilliant part of a brilliancy prize might start somewhere deep in the middlegame, and in order to reach such a position, however understandable it might be, you'd need to plow your way through heaps of theory, and we know that theory only makes sense in its vast context of previous trial and error, so trying to follow a particular variation without sufficient prior understanding of its themes and knowledge of its nuances carries an insanely large risk of suddenly finding yourself out of the book without a single clue about what to do next.
3. Theoretical obsoletion. What's the use and the point of just hoping that your opponent will walk directly even into a historically lesser-known line perfectly set for obliteration, however brilliant that slaughter might've been when it first happened, if an improvement was found at an earlier point in the opening (and is presumably commonly played even today) anytime after that slugfest of the ancients?
And if you choose based on openings you already play, then there's a chance for the following:
4. Professional viability. Maybe your preferred opening just can't be found as a part the repertoires of the grandmasters, because it's lost its value in the topmost-level play (usually due to theoretical and/or practical competitive standards). Or maybe you haven't chosen an adequate opening for your skill level in the first place, and are biting off more than you can chew.
5. Obscurity. Maybe your potential role model plays your preferred opening even astoundingly well, but loses a decent number of games with it due to frequent mistakes in later phases of the game, thus not only rendering some of the potentially most instructive opening-handling examples undetectable outside of the win statistics, but also being able to confuse you about the quality of the opening if you can't tell where and when the real mistakes were made.
6. Universality. Even if your potential role model plays ALL of your preferred openings REALLY well, and statistics back him up just as much, he might still be too one-dimensional for the real needs of your chess growth; but I suspect that might be by far the least of all the numbered evils.
So, any suggestions about how one should go about finding a main chess role model? Some exact suggestions, perhaps? Some jack-of-all-trades among the official and unofficial World Champions and their challengers? Thank you all in advance!