I know perfectly well I'm inclined to make crazy, risky, agressive moves, and I have the horrible rating to prove it. However I like the puzzle-solving involved in playing out of the ordinary moves.
As for you, I think deep in your heart you know. Unless you're one of those rare breed who play perfectly flat. Those types always beat me.
You have to ask yourself what kinds of advantages you like. When you prefer some over others, that's the kind of style you are. Questions like:
Would you rather have an extra pawn or two, but in exchange be on the defensive (your opponent has the initiative and is attacking).
Would you give up some material as long as your pieces were better posted or more developed than your opponents?
If you had to make the choice would you refrain from trading and keep attacking or would you go ahead an trade into an endgame with a small advantage?
Would you rather have had a few pawns traded off for open lines for you pieces or would you rather lock pawns up for a closed game with maneuvering.
By nature, I'm positional. In all strategy games, I enjoy taking a small edge, shutting down all counterplay, and nursing it home to a win.
One of my favorite moments playing Magic: The Gathering as a nerdy teenager was a tournament match in which I had an opponent down to 1 life point, and conditions on the board that said he lost at least one life point if he cast a spell, summoned a creature or attacked. Nothing he could do but sit there and draw cards waiting for me to finish him off, or he could commit game suicide.
In reality, chess is such a wild game (especially at my level) that there's nothing I can do to force the games in any one direction. I'm just trying desperately not to lose it with each move.
would you rather be winning and defending or losing annd attacking
If it's a lasting initiative, the worst you can do is draw of course. There are things that balance out material deficit, and some people are very uncomfortable having to defend, or are very uncomfortable being required to keep up pressure.
Once upon a time I was very tactically-minded. Then, after not playing humans at all for a few years and just playing silicon opponents I gradually became a materialist, play it safe, positional kind of guy. Otherwise I just got crushed by the comps for the most part. It was a survival strategy.
I made efforts after that computer opponent period to shift into a more active kind of play, so I guess I've moved out of that staid and unenterprising style, but still if I'm in a game I care about I shy away from wild tactics and uncontrolled variations.
There was an nifty old article in Chess Life that categorized players in novel ways. I can't find the article--I got it in the pile though for sure--but in it I found myself precisely described: The Preparer.
No matter how much I prepare for serious play I'm never fully ready. Part of that I blame on my penchant for opening study. There's always more of that junk to squirt into my veins. Sometimes I wish I'd never got involved in those long MCO columns. It certainly wasn't necessary (but damn interesting nevertheless).
In general, I feel like a trivial example of Botvinnik's player, trying to find exact solutions to the inexact problems that make up chess.
I'd say tactical but tbh, that's because all my games are won/lost that way and I'm bad at endgames. I get the impression this is typical for my level (chess.com level. never played a tourney. 1500-1600 on this site which means, as im told, 1300-1400 in real life. atm inflated).
I know positional ideas and try to win positionally. more often than not, none are necessary/ go for the king! I live and die by the sword, so to speak.
Heh, the preparer, interesting. Without hearing the rest of the article that sounds like me... unless there's a forced win I feel like I should just keep preparing. And if my opponent has a threat I'd rather defend than get into double edged play that I can't calculate my way out of.
Lazy would also be a good description heh. I like positions that make sense to me, and are mostly static. I don't want to have to calculate many lines to find good moves and I like a clear plan to follow heh.
I like to suffocate my opponents play until they are paralysed. I like to think of my style as a positional grind. I guess I could be termed a preparer.
I'm the mess up in the opening, come back as your snoozing type player
NJH, you sound like you are a quiet player.
I think that my play is far too passive, I have to remind myself all the time in games to look for aggressive moves, but I find to easy to attack once I am already losing, which is a shame. I figure that I might as well play a gambit from now on, so I'm looking into the Albin Counter-gambit and King's Gambit.
I am a tactical player, I just finished a long otb tournament today, I drew a 2270 using the Albin Counter Gambit. My otb rating is 1946, and Fide 1996.
Hey i have no idea what my style is and i was wondering if you guys would help me. I always start out with the queens pawn moving up 2. I am a major queen player but if she is taken i can play with my knights. I go after pieces in the middle game and at the end game if i am up i will take every piece they have. If i am not up than I will be defensive and get a queen from a pawn.
Boa constrictor , positional chess - I slowly torture opponents - to quote Bobby Fischer
" I like the moment when I break the guys ego."
yeah, i was wondering what my playing style is, if i have one, so i always start the game trying to do a four move checkmate when that does not work i just try to win
Hi there,
I was wondering how chess players assess their chess style, wether they are more tactical or strategical, agressive, quite...
When I face my opponents on the board, and I've already met them I'm perfectly able to say if this is guy likes to attack from the first moves, or if that ones is scary, that one over there doesn't like to exchange queens... However I look at my games once and again, and I'm not able to say what kind of player I am, which are my features.
I guess that this happens because I can't really look at my games in a perfect objective way, since I always "play".
I was wondering if this also happens to you.
Thanks for your comments.