Very strong, concrete, computer-driven play 
playing styles of top GMs today
Sort:
I think that the OP may have meant individual styles, such as Kramnik is considered to be more of a positional player, Topalov more of a tactical, Anand maybe something in between...
Jan 22, 2011
0
#4
im tal reborn. i throw away pieces like crazy, but i win all my games.
FullmetalAlchemist wrote:
im tal reborn. i throw away pieces like crazy, but i win all my games.
Only on 1 0, Metal !
Atos wrote:
I think that the OP may have meant individual styles, such as Kramnik is considered to be more of a positional player, Topalov more of a tactical, Anand maybe something in between...
this
Jan 22, 2011
0
#7
Atos wrote:
FullmetalAlchemist wrote:
im tal reborn. i throw away pieces like crazy, but i win all my games.
Only on 1 0, Metal !
thats all i play, though!
[COMMENT DELETED]
Jan 22, 2011
0
#10
LastImpression wrote:
Atos wrote:
I think that the OP may have meant individual styles, such as Kramnik is considered to be more of a positional player, Topalov more of a tactical, Anand maybe something in between...
this
I understood that, but was too lazy to answer - ok :
- Anand : all-rounder, quick player, with an intuitive sense for initiative and attacking play
- Carlsen : universal player with a natural feel for piece positioning, photographic memory allows him to play any opening under the sun, very good endgame technique, likes to play seemingly equal positions and push his opponents to death in the endgame - slightly less sharp tactically (this is relative, of course)
- Aronian : strategic player with a knack for small combinations that he can see at lightning speed (he is blitz WC). Good at endgame play.
- Kramnik : very strong technical player, very good in endgames, superior opening preparation ; very deep positional understanding allows him to play confidently for unbalanced positions
- Karjakin : Fischer-like player - very concrete, deep opening specialization (1.e4, Najdorf...), very pragmatic : plays whatever works; positional active style as white and counter-attacking style as black
- Topalov - great attacker, very strong opening preparation, plays for initiative at all costs - uneasy in dry technical positions
- Mamedyarov - great tactician, looking for offbeat lines, uses tactics to reach slightly superior dynamic endgames positions where he revels
- Nakamura - chess samuraï, natural player, moving target (playing all kinds of different openings, including some crappy stuff), can play well when short of time
- Grishuk - inspired player with a deep sense of initiative and a fondness for space, enjoys poker a lot
- Ivanchuk - chess genius, can play well any position - loves complications and queen sacrifices, tremendous endgame player, less strong mentally than other top players
Fezzik wrote:
I had two different reason for not answering the specific styles of the top players in addition to sheer laziness:
a) I don't know enough about some of the players to make intelligent comments and
b) The strong GMs have far more in common stylistically than their idiosynchrocies.
If I was to show 10 games played by 4 different Super GMs without names attached, and no access to databases, I doubt very many people would be able to correctly label who played which color in each game.
Correctly read as: "At most a few dozen people in the world"
BTW I read while Carlsen's memory is very good, his opening preparation is poor in comparison to Kramnik's and Anand's... I forgot which top (or near top) player said this, I won't dig it up though unless someone is terribly interested :)
Jan 22, 2011
0
#13
orangehonda wrote:
BTW I read while Carlsen's memory is very good, his opening preparation is poor in comparison to Kramnik's and Anand's... I forgot which top (or near top) player said this, I won't dig it up though unless someone is terribly interested :)
Kasparov ?
I think it was Svidler (on chessbase.com) said something to the effect that working with Kasparov gave him excellent opening ideas or prep or something... but on his own Carlsen's prep is not as good as Anand's or Kramniks. But hey, when you're not as good as 2 veteran former or current world champs that isn't such a bad thing lol.
hicetnunc wrote:
LastImpression wrote:
Atos wrote:
I think that the OP may have meant individual styles, such as Kramnik is considered to be more of a positional player, Topalov more of a tactical, Anand maybe something in between...
this
I understood that, but was too lazy to answer - ok :
Anand : all-rounder, quick player, with an intuitive sense for initiative and attacking play Carlsen : universal player with a natural feel for piece positioning, photographic memory allows him to play any opening under the sun, very good endgame technique, likes to play seemingly equal positions and push his opponents to death in the endgame - slightly less sharp tactically (this is relative, of course) Aronian : strategic player with a knack for small combinations that he can see at lightning speed (he is blitz WC). Good at endgame play. Kramnik : very strong technical player, very good in endgames, superior opening preparation ; very deep positional understanding allows him to play confidently for unbalanced positions Karjakin : Fischer-like player - very concrete, deep opening specialization (1.e4, Najdorf...), very pragmatic : plays whatever works; positional active style as white and counter-attacking style as black Topalov - great attacker, very strong opening preparation, plays for initiative at all costs - uneasy in dry technical positions Mamedyarov - great tactician, looking for offbeat lines, uses tactics to reach slightly superior dynamic endgames positions where he revels Nakamura - chess samuraï, natural player, moving target (playing all kinds of different openings, including some crappy stuff), can play well when short of time Grishuk - inspired player with a deep sense of initiative and a fondness for space, enjoys poker a lot Ivanchuk - chess genius, can play well any position - loves complications and queen sacrifices, tremendous endgame player, less strong mentally than other top playersthanks
Jan 22, 2011
0
#16
hicetnunc wrote:
I understood that, but was too lazy to answer - ok :
Anand : all-rounder, quick player, with an intuitive sense for initiative and attacking play Carlsen : universal player with a natural feel for piece positioning, photographic memory allows him to play any opening under the sun, very good endgame technique, likes to play seemingly equal positions and push his opponents to death in the endgame - slightly less sharp tactically (this is relative, of course) Aronian : strategic player with a knack for small combinations that he can see at lightning speed (he is blitz WC). Good at endgame play. Kramnik : very strong technical player, very good in endgames, superior opening preparation ; very deep positional understanding allows him to play confidently for unbalanced positions Karjakin : Fischer-like player - very concrete, deep opening specialization (1.e4, Najdorf...), very pragmatic : plays whatever works; positional active style as white and counter-attacking style as black Topalov - great attacker, very strong opening preparation, plays for initiative at all costs - uneasy in dry technical positions Mamedyarov - great tactician, looking for offbeat lines, uses tactics to reach slightly superior dynamic endgames positions where he revels Nakamura - chess samuraï, natural player, moving target (playing all kinds of different openings, including some crappy stuff), can play well when short of time Grishuk - inspired player with a deep sense of initiative and a fondness for space, enjoys poker a lot Ivanchuk - chess genius, can play well any position - loves complications and queen sacrifices, tremendous endgame player, less strong mentally than other top playersNicely done, hicetnunc! Thanks
Um trysts i was hoping for your contributions too !
Jan 22, 2011
0
#18
Atos wrote:
Um trysts i was hoping for your contributions too !
From what little I understand of todays grandmasters, I must defer to Hicetnunc's superb comment, Atos
Jan 22, 2011
0
#19
NN28 wrote:
And how would you describe Geller's and Stein's style?
When Geller was young, he used to revel in attacking play taking inordinate chances in order to smoke out the enemy king. Even then he was quite the giant killer, able to beat just about anyone, but he also lost quite a few games through taking unjustified risks. Geller was one of the early apostles of the recent concreteness movement where you play moves that offend against classical principles if they can be justified tactically. As he grew older though, he also became interested in long range planning, and won quite a few games with slow systems designed to limit his opponent's counterplay.
Leonid Stein is often described as an attacker, but to my mind, he was much more buttoned down than Tal or Geller. He approaches his attacks in a very technical way, maneuvering precisely rather than taking chances for an all out attack. Maybe a bit like Alekhine.
Can someone please give me a quick rundown of the playing styles of the top GMs today? (probably around the top 20 or so)