Styles

I heard somewhere that club players have no style.

OTOH, I read in an Andy Soltis book, that after learning the rules everyone begines to show preference of moves. For example, one beginner would play bishop long, because he prefers long oves. Another player might make knight jumps because he feels knight jumps are harder to calculate. This proves that there are styles and prefernces at every level.

What is your style and what moves do you prefer.

Also, I believe that playing a wide variety of openings can help in diversifying.

If you're rated, lets just pick a number, 600 points higher than your opponent it's likely you can win simply with what you'll consider fundamental knoweldge.  Develop my pieces, take the open file, win a knight with this tactic, and mate.  So I can see how players make the statement "no style until 20, 22, 24, or 2600" (inevitably the stronger to commenter the higher their estimate).  There was some Kasparov quote during his time at the top where he said only a handful of people in the world played "real" chess... the others were just copying from the good players (something like this) haha.

But yeah, I think everyone has a style when they play their peers even if you just learned the moves.  Some people bring the queen out early and go for the kill right away.  Some play a checkerboard pawn formation with hopes of building a fortress.

In speed games my style is all about the initiative with diminished care for material... but long games are opposite.  I like slow grinds with careful transitions and winning in the endgame.  Some master may laugh... I'm not saying I'm good at it, but that's how another player would probably describe me.

This makes sense of course, and his point is probably aimed at those who miss half move threats and drop pieces.  At the same time though I think a reasonable question is where's the magical point of "no blunders?"  Books are replete with examples of super GM X throwing away the win or draw with an inferior move. 

I understand if you give away half your pieces then it's not a style... but I think strong players are too dismissive of the idea that amateurs have a style.  If I play a peer then my blunders are simply part of the back and forth and a style should show through.

I really don't know my style. I just play to whatever I feel the position requires. Perhapse that itself is style.

Haha, ok :)

well, i mean the master was probably comparing the amateur to a GM, in which case, the style is inferior. but when two amateurs play each other, they will try and win in different ways and this is style.

also i have never been able to understand kotov's thesis that a player should glean the 'nature of a position' before selecting candidate moves.

i much more like willy hendriks' and john watson's view that modern chess does not adhere to rules but only deals in concreteness.

kotov's whole thesis is questionable and i am not sure it will lead to any improvement. i was just reading his book play like a grandmaster.

he first says 'the attacking side always wins'. then he says that if an attack is premature it will create weaknesses and then after defending appropriately the other side will become the attacking side. isn't this kind of a truism.

then he goes on to say that attacking can only be carried out when the position is superior.

and that if one has a superior position then one has the duty to attack. what if i like karpov prefer a positional struggle.

the attack must be directed at the opponent's weakest spot. again a truism. what is a weak spot??? a square of importance or just a pawn or a knight that happens to be undefended??

I always judged myself to be a dynamic analytic player who is still struggling to embrace a  modern universality in my games

Every player has a style. Amatuer players are inconsistent at finding the real values of moves which is why many will claim they have no style.

However, if a player dislikes making what they see to be risky moves (even if it is not so) or there is a player who likes to go for all out attacks (even if there is no win) that is their style, regardless of whether or not it is flawed.

Anyone who does any contact martial art will know there are people who are more aggressive than others in sparring. Sure, if I was the best in the world I could probably punish these people pretty bad for their over aggressiveness, or even if I do manage to punish them, it doesnt take away from the fact that theyre aggressive fighters and that is their style.

Personally I give preference to very safe moves and prefer endgames. I may even opt for a slightly inferior move if it will get me to an endgame as that is where I feel most competent.

Assault, that is also something I am aiming to do, i.e. get more into the endgame. I feel that is where I can really shine through.

This is something accomplished chess players tell themselves and others to make themselves feel better about having devoted large chunks of their life to chess.  As if style were something that had to be "earned."  You hear a lot of the same nonsense in art circles.

Anyone who takes part in any activity that allows freedom of expression will invariably develop, or at least gravitate toward, a "style."

It might be more accurate to say only those accomplished in their arts can be rightly said to be successful in expressing their style consistently.

If anything, class players have much more of a distinctive style than masters. The best players must be well-rounded and must not stray from the correct move to satisfy their own personal styles.

By contrast, the club player has the freedom of ignorance. He will study what he likes first and steer games towards the sort of positions he has studied. He can play moves that he likes and not always be punished for them. He can play the King's Gambit. All this allows for much greater liberty of style than any former champion can claim.