What master/famous player embodies your favorite style?

Logic, determination, creativity, Botvinnik.

I'll be perfectly honest - I find it very difficult to discern the famous players' styles. If shown a game between say Kasparov and Karpov, and not being told who played white, I could probably guess correctly based on the opening used. However, take me into the middlegame, and I cannot tell who is who. Same for the endgame. Only the opening gives me the general guidance. Thus French & Dutch - Botvinnik, Sicilian Sozin - Fischer, Benoni - probably Tal and so on. Smyslov had this predilection for fianchettos both on white and black side. But Spassky is a chameleon - who knows what he's going to play?

That said, and having played through the games of many champions, I do feel that in terms of being recognizable, Capablanca's style is easiest to spot. No fireworks in the opening, quiet play for the most part, and suddenly the opponent has a losing position. I don't know how he did it, but his games are so effortless, it is uncanny.

definitely capablanca

so is it true that many of his sac's were complications but just flat out unsound with correct play

Karpov probably but I really do have Tal moments when the board allows me to sac stuff.

 the thing is, that his positions were so complicated that they were next to imposible to solve OTB with the clock ticking.  most of the so called 'solutions' to Tal came after a committee of GM's had weeks to analyze.  He beat Botvinik, he beat Fischer, he beat Kasparov - not a bad accomplishment for an 'unsound' player.

Well, a sac that works can technically not be unsound because it works. Sacs that are "sound" according to hours of computer analysis are not sacs anymore but they are simply combinations that favor you. Any sac that is solved is not a sac really.

In short: Tal is one of the greatest intuative chess players ever.

Nice. Tal was a chess genius. I hated reading commentary from some arrogant jerk speaking about how "unsound" his absolutely brilliant and shocking sacrifices were. They came out of nowhere. I would play through his games and be absolutely in awe! The writer of the book would even say: "Are you ready?" And I would look at the position and have no clue what was about to happen, and then..."Ne6!!". It would make me smile from ear to ear. I couldn't believe he would do that, he would see that! Tal is like reading Heidegger for me. An absolute genius. You know you are reading genius. I could never write like him--I could never see that! Stunning!! The great Tal is a once in a lifetime experience.

Karpov!

But tryst, you didn't answer the question: were all of Tal's sacs sound?

No, but no GM ever can make only sound sacrifices. Alot of Tal's combinations and sacs were sound anyways. Even when they weren't, it still took down the best players IN THE WORLD. No one can win or lose if mistakes are not made.

hell Tal himself said:

"Some sacrifices are sound, the rest are mine"

He was a once in a century player, soundness does not always trump artistry.

Another vote for Capablanca. I love the way he could get the best of what appears to be an even exchange on the surface. That's what I like to emulate from his games by putting lots of complications in the middle game.

Tartakower:

If a move is doubtful, it can be played

and

Some part of a mistake is always correct

Don't you love how he rattled the great minds of chess with those sacs, Elubas? I like human chess. Computers don't.

I suppose...

Petrossian for the "no need of sword, my opponent will get tired hitting my shield".

Tarrasch for his speeches.