What's the point?

Fixed

ic ic

I'm not sure where I fit in. I do love a good end game and I've noticed how much easier it is to make a crucial error when there's so little pieces left on the board. 

From what I've said am I an opening, middle or end game guy?

Give me a questionnere or something because I don't even know the kind of player that I am. 

I reckon middle.  What do you think shell knight?

I think most people are middle game focused until they make an effort to learn endgames.  Just like most start out tacticians until they make an effort to learn strategic play.

Not that learning one thing always changes someone's style.

But there's a chance you like fewer pieces on the board, or maneuvering play.  You know what you like best.  Someone could  help figure it out but they'd have to see lots of your games.

Well, that might be the best answer... simply that you don't know.  Although I'm a bit on the fence about it, usually FM, IM, GM players say that players under 2000 don't have different styles, just different weaknesses.

As a metaphor, how can you know what Russian literature you prefer if you can't read Russian?  I usually hear strong players say to learn the game first, and worry about style later.

At my level of play, I meet a lot of these "traders".

It's quite despicable beacuse it inhibits my ability to do spectacular queen sacs and smothered mates like TT says is the way to go.

Heh, yeah, one guy I played a series with always stormed my king.  So one game I delayed castling for a long time.  After they spent 10-15 moves putting everything on the kingside and pushing pawns... I played 0-0-0 lol.

"Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness"

-- Fake Botvinnik

I like that one shell knight.  And just to quote my favourite;

'with great weakness, comes gret responsibility'

Botvinnik

That's a great story, shell-knight.

I havent seen anyone alude to it so I will.

Only allow trades when it is good for you. If you cant see when they will force a trade you need to practice thinking about the position.

If you dont know when it is good then welcome trades as you could use the endgame practice as well.

Yep, Botvinnik knows best

Yeah, it's a good habit to think about which piece is doing more work / has more scope.  Not all knights are worth 3!

Also from the POV of what's left on the board.  Maybe they're each player's best minor piece... but you'll be left with two average pieces, while they'll be left with two bad ones.  Average players may eventually win a game because they've won a pawn.  Stronger players will win a game after their opponent is left with one bad piece.

I'm no respected chess player but I've started to notice a lot of opponents are too dependent on their "standardised" opening game. I like to try and vary my openings in order to get me out of my comfort zone. However, if I'm black and I play the French defence, nine times out of ten I'll lose this game due to this opening. I like to try and keep my playing style "dynamic" and not "static". I agree with shell-knight's statement. If I thought I was becoming speciliased in a certain way of play I'd certainly be developing weakness' and if you're opponent knows how you play it's asking for trouble. 

So it's better to "generalize" and "adapt" to shifting conditions, rather than to focus on "tactical" solutions to a pre-modulated "strategy" in a given  positional situation?

Im not sure about this one Arthur.  Who is the quote by?

Most positions you can't solve with tactics or strategy.  Most positions are solved with tactics AND strategy.

What's best is to analyze and play the move you think is best.  The underlying method involves known positions that serve as a framework, then you use your calculation and logic to build on top of that framework to decide what's best.

From the "Fog of War in Chess", by Confusus.

Ahhh, great read, highly recommended to any budding chesser