What is my Middlegame Style? - Chess Forums - Page 2

DavidWills99 · 2025-12-13T22:59:15-08:00

Hi Forum folks, I really need help on this one - my middlegame style: Okay, I get it. 'My opening choice should be based on the type(s) of middle games I want to play.' I do not know what type of middle game I want to play. Now what? Are there things to look for which will provide clues? T

DavidWills99

3 days ago

0

#21

DrNukey wrote:

DavidWills99 wrote:

Both books have now been ordered. Thank you! I will skip two games (one had 2 moves, one had 16 moves). But I'll include the third which had 26 moves and is far into middlegame. I really appreciate the input.

If there is a particular book 📖 that you have in mind 💬 or thought about getting, let me know and I will see if I have it or something similar to it

That way can you can save $$ and shipping 🚢

Oh thank you, Nathaniel! Order already placed but I should be able to cancel. I'll contact you back-channel. Much appreciated!

DavidWills99

3 days ago

0

#22

DavidWills99 wrote:

... THE CRUX: What does a GOOD middlegame style FEEL LIKE???

I just identified that feeling in a game we just finished!!! Ignore the checkmate - that's NOT what generated this RIGHT 'STYLE' FEELING; instead, it was the entire game as we moved around and vied for position. And please ignore all the errors we made - we're both pretty new yet to the game.

So is "What kind of middlegame do you want?" the same question as "What kind of middlegame excites you?"

Is THIS the feeling I'm hunting for? If so, I've found it and it is not ATTACK KILL immediately at all. It is more subtle than that (excluding errors and blunders). I'll skip asking about openings themselves. Right now I want to zero in on STYLE and FEELINGS (I think).

In review of (12) past games, (6) had that great feeling (even when I lost), (4) I tripped all over myself or got (myself) trapped and (2) I fell asleep.

But it's this feeling from this game - the excitement - that BOARD TENSION - like military generals redeploying troops to key defensive positions while quietly coming up the backside of a hill and flanking them. So ... Is this then my middlegame style?

Are there names of various 'styles?' Can we list them so I can choose one? Or can you please review this fairly-quick game and give me (make it up if you have to) name for my style?

ADDED: I'M WHITE IN THIS GAME

ADDED; There is more review to come. I still got confused on how to answer some questions and some folks I haven't even responded to yet but only because of time AND this game happening at just the right moment.

ADDED AGAIN: BTW, I already have a name for my style ... CHAOS.

DavidWills99

3 days ago

0

#23

LieutenantFrankColumbo wrote:

You need to review your games and determine the following:

1. What types of middle game patterns am I getting?

2. What types of pawn structures are you getting?

What you need to study and learn are:

1. What are the pawn structures I am getting and how do I play them?

2. What are the middle game plans and ideas associated with those pawn structures?

BTW, I'm still working on this since I'm unclear what things such as 'pawn structures' and 'middle game patterns' mean. But I wanted to get this game out because it screams ME! haha!

ADDED LATE: I'm researching what these things mean so I can address them properly. I realize most of you must somehow know what these mean but I'm quite literal so they're unclear to me. My fault.

DavidWills99

3 days ago

0

#24

DoYouLikeCurry wrote:

“Even a poor plan is better than no plan at all”. My advice is don’t reinvent the wheel - most common openings have a fair amount of information about how to play them beyond the memorisation of the moves. If you’re at the beginner stage, you can still sculpt your game to how you feel you want to play it. Are you the sort of player who likes to win quickly by attacking the king? Do you want to slowly positionally crush your opponent and ruin their day like a boa constrictor? Do you want to pressure the centre until they crack? Do you want to sit tight and poke spears out, and wait for your opponent to impale himself? Once you know what you like to do, you can choose openings that benefit that style.

if that’s too tricky? The first step is getting used to making concrete plans. Once you’ve played the opening moves you know, sit and evaluate the position. Make a plan. Choose an idea. It doesn’t matter if you get it wrong, because you can evaluate it with computer help afterwards, and learn why the plan wasn’t right. And then try again.

And don't think I've forgotten about your input, Adam - not at all. it's going to take a few days for me yet. This game is similar to most of my games so I wanted to get it posted before I (again) get lost in all the incredible details! Thank you so much!

LieutenantFrankColumbo

3 days ago

0

#25

DavidWills99 wrote:

LieutenantFrankColumbo wrote:

You need to review your games and determine the following:

1. What types of middle game patterns am I getting?

2. What types of pawn structures are you getting?

What you need to study and learn are:

1. What are the pawn structures I am getting and how do I play them?

2. What are the middle game plans and ideas associated with those pawn structures?

BTW, I'm still working on this since I'm unclear what things such as 'pawn structures' and 'middle game patterns' mean. But I waned to get this file out because it screams ME! haha!

And you will be working on it for a long time. Its going to take a while to learn what types of pawn structures you like to play. And then you'll invest even more time into learning and understanding how to play them.

DavidWills99

3 days ago

0

#26

@LieutenantFrankColumbo oh whew! I was feeling really bad by not knowing what it meant. It seems that happens a lot in chess, i.e., concepts are deeeeep.

DavidWills99

3 days ago

0

#27

Patzer_FM wrote:

Take your time, clear your mind and ask yourself what middlegame positions you ENJOY playing? Your opening depends on your middlegame style. Ask quesetions to realize it, do you like closed positions? do you like playing aggresively? do you like semi closed positions (thats me!), do you like fast paced or slow paced positions? etc. BUT its inportant to realize you may not find your middlegame style now or for some time, but it should come naturally, test and try but dont worry if you dont understand your style yet

Hey whiz kid, thank you!!! Clear my mind? Some say my mind is already quite clear, LOL. Oh wait ... no, they said it's EMPTY! If I can't find my middlegame style then how can I ever solidify my opening choice? You mean, after all this, I may not find the answers yet?? hahha!

Oh gosh, I love chess!!!!

DavidWills99

3 days ago

0

#28

Mike's games! I watch Mike's games! And they move back and forth and shift and test and - it is very subtle until right before a strike - like a rattle snake!! If so, that means I should use London and Slav and CK!! But when I try that, nothing works and I end up in a knot. So I can't just copy Mike or anyone!

LieutenantFrankColumbo

3 days ago

0

#29

DavidWills99 wrote:

@LieutenantFrankColumbo oh whew! I was feeling really bad by not knowing what it meant. It seems that happens a lot in chess, i.e., concepts are deeeeep.

The easiest part of the game to play is the opening. All you need to do is use opening principles, and blunder check your moves. That alone will get you to USCF C class (1400-1599), One of the great things about chess is that the fewer the pieces on the board, the harder the game gets.

Becoming decent. Not proficient, but just decent will take years. Just enjoy the journey. If youre looking for instant success youre in the wrong game.

DavidWills99

3 days ago

0

#30

BTW, in the GAME, I'm white. Strange it didn't show both players properly. I'll work on that for next time if I ever display a game again. Sorry, folks.

chesssblackbelt

3 days ago

0

#31

DavidWills99 wrote:

... THE CRUX: What does a GOOD middlegame style FEEL LIKE???

I just identified that feeling in a game we just finished!!! Ignore the checkmate - that's NOT what generated this RIGHT 'STYLE' FEELING; instead, it was the entire game as we moved around and vied for position. And please ignore all the errors we made - we're both pretty new yet to the game.

So is "What kind of middlegame do you want?" the same question as "What kind of middlegame excites you?"

Is THIS the feeling I'm hunting for? If so, I've found it and it is not ATTACK KILL immediately at all. It is more subtle than that (excluding errors and blunders). I'll skip asking about openings themselves. Right now I want to zero in on STYLE and FEELINGS (I think).

In review of (12) past games, (6) had that great feeling (even when I lost), (4) I tripped all over myself or got (myself) trapped and (2) I fell asleep.

But it's this feeling from this game - the excitement - that BOARD TENSION - like military generals redeploying troops to key defensive positions while quietly coming up the backside of a hill and flanking them. So ... Is this then my middlegame style?

Are there names of various 'styles?' Can we list them so I can choose one? Or can you please review this fairly-quick game and give me (make it up if you have to) name for my style?

ADDED: I'M WHITE IN THIS FILE

ADDED; There is more review to come. I still got confused on how to answer some questions and some folks I haven't even responded to yet but only because of time AND this game happening at just the right moment.

ADDED AGAIN: BTW, I already have a name for my style ... CHAOS.

Don't let chompy see move 22

DavidWills99

3 days ago

0

#32

LieutenantFrankColumbo wrote:

DavidWills99 wrote:

@LieutenantFrankColumbo oh whew! I was feeling really bad by not knowing what it meant. It seems that happens a lot in chess, i.e., concepts are deeeeep.

The easiest part of the game to play is the opening. All you need to do is use opening principles, and blunder check your moves. That alone will get you to USCF C class (1400-1599), One of the great things about chess is that the fewer the pieces on the board, the harder the game gets.

Becoming decent. Not proficient, but just decent will take years. Just enjoy the journey. If youre looking for instant success youre in the wrong game.

Oh wow. This lifted a huge weight and I somehow almost missed this post! If so, and I DO believe you, then I can still study chess and explore its miracles every day and continue to dive deeper into it - for the rest of my life ... the fun doesn't have to end just because the pressure ends! I didn't know that I needed to hear this BUT I DID!

There is no rush because the journey's the thing. No titles, no Ratings - just the board between me and my opponent! Why was I pressing so hard - half killing myself? I have absolutely NO IDEA. Nope, I don't need that pressure - I want the fun!

I still have a LOT of work to do (in lots of ways) and I'll continue my Study Plan but it'll be cut by two thirds (maybe only half, haha). One day, I still want to succeed in smothering the Queen. That's my only dream now. :-) Words can't express - believe me (as you know) I've tried. Thank you. I can breathe again.

DavidWills99

3 days ago

0

#33

chesssblackbelt wrote:

Don't let chompy see move 22

Good morning! Honestly, I looked at move 22 and I have no clue why chompy would be interested. I don't see pushing of pawns at all. Can you explain, please? Thank you!!

LieutenantFrankColumbo

3 days ago

0

#34

Rule #1. Unless someone is being genuinely helpful. Ignore them

chesssblackbelt

3 days ago

0

#35

nxg4

NM mikewier

3 days ago

0

#36

I think you are making this more complicated than it has to be.

You have played more than 2,000 games. You should know what kind of positions you like and are most comfortable in. You should have been trying out different openings and so should have an idea about which openings suit you.

If you haven’t been experimenting with different openings, you should do so. Sure, you will lose games due to unfamiliarity with theory. But that is okay. You will learn more from a loss followed by analysis of the opening than you would by trying to learn the opening cold. Look at such losses as an investment in learning.

The Silman book recommended above is good but is, I think, aimed at stronger and more experienced players.

chesssblackbelt

3 days ago

0

#37

i dont think silmans too advanced but maybe i forget what it was like to be below 1000

really any book you do should increase your rating by a lot

i heard soviet chess primer is good for beginners but i never read it

Jenium

3 days ago

0

#38

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to think about your "style" or actively pick a "style" before you're proficiant at all parts of the game. It's like someone who just started painting asks if he/she is an impressionist or an expressionist. At that level style is more a lack of knowledge than a preference. Hence, the Soviet school of chess recommended to start with gambits and work your way up to closed games. Once you are 2000+ you will have seen enough positions and know what you like best.

LieutenantFrankColumbo

3 days ago

0

#39

Failure is data. Use it in that regard and you'll be fine.

DavidWills99

3 days ago

0

#40

Well, I had cancelled my book order. Truthfully, I couldn't afford $50 (price of both books) regardless of how great the books and no matter how much I respect those who recommend them. I'll continue to study (but not at manic pace like before). Life seems much simpler (and my way forward seems clearer) now. Thank you!