you're a normal player. everyone wants that.
What is my style?
Sort:
Oldest
Jun 26, 2017
0
#3
mickynj wrote:
If you are rated under 2000, you don't have a style--you have weaknesses. Just like the rest of us. For weaker players, your "style" is defined by the kind of positions you don't know how to play
I once took a lesson from a golf pro who told me "everyone has their own natural golf swing--and for the vast majority of players it's a wild, weak slice!" The same kind of statement could be made about chess players
Thanks Mick. I'll stick with opening principles and not hanging pieces.
"Building a repertoire ... we will take the idealized situation of someone starting from square one ... The first step is to think about your personal style. Do you prefer open, tactical positions or closed, strategic positions? Does an attack on your king make you nervous, or are you happy so long as you have a counter-attack? Do you prefer main lines, or something slightly offbeat? Next, look at the various openings available, and see which ones fit in with your personal style. ..." - GM John Nunn (1998)
Jun 26, 2017
0
#6
attacking style, definitely....by far the most common style here on chess.com....about 2/3 of the players you run into at the club level OTB also have this style. Several of my OTB super aggressive attacking friends actually improved their ratings by learning how to hold themselves back a little...less foaming at the bit may help you....just a suggestion. A universal style is what most GMs have now-a-days....know when to attack and when to "chicken out".
"... A universal style is what most GMs have now-a-days. ..." - universityofpawns
"... Your choice of openings should be made in accordance with your own tastes and style of play. ..." - Mark Dvoretsky
[COMMENT DELETED]
ThatstheTicket wrote:
I looked at your game versus abg 63 and you looks like a fast developing attacker not minding the defense very much.
Playing bullet only, as it looks like you are doing, will not give you time for working deep with own ideas and tactics during the games. The best bullet players in the world (Nakamura and Carlsen) spends a lot of time on long chess.
bb_gum234 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
"... Your choice of openings should be made in accordance with your own tastes and style of play. ..." - Mark Dvoretsky
Ah yes, Dvoretsky, the famous trainer of 1100 players who post online asking strangers to tell them their style ...
MD did, I think, have some experience with players aspiring to be grandmasters. I posted the MD quote after the post #8 comments about GMs (~4 hours ago).
bb_gum234 wrote:
... 1100 players who post online asking strangers to tell them their style... not a style based on games of course, because he's "not asking anyone to look at [his] games" his style is based on developing his pieces and attacking.
For ThatstheTicket (who had asked, "Do these details determine a style or am I off base completely?"), I posted the GM Nunn quote in #6 (about 5 hours ago).
[COMMENT DELETED]
Thatstheticket, your full attack - less defense style is natural for bullet. In bullet there is no time for thinking both attack and defense. Therefore I think your defense will grow much stronger if you spend much time playing at long time controls.
Jun 27, 2017
0
#14
You style is called the 'crippled monkey on a tree'.You will always fall and get crippled again.
Jun 28, 2017
0
#17
There is a reason this question is always asked by lower rated players. Class players dont have a style, they blunder. Forget about what your style is and concentrate on improving. All you need right now is tactics, and opening principles.
I doubt the OP was looking for worthless platitudes. "You don't have a style until you're 3800 ELO" Yeah, you really can, just not as refined as a Petrosian Defender or a Tal Attacker. There are weak players no more than 1000, who clearly enjoy some positions more than others, are apt to attack, or to defend.
OP would be a Maverick, an attacking player. Aggressor. Maybe not Paul Morphy, but an aggressor, at least certainly in spirit, and that counts for a lot.
Jun 28, 2017
0
#19
Kindaspongy
open tactical/closed strategic ; depends apon advantage.
bb_gum234 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
"... Your choice of openings should be made in accordance with your own tastes and style of play. ..." - Mark Dvoretsky
Ah yes, Dvoretsky, the famous trainer of 1100 players who post online asking strangers to tell them their style... not a style based on games of course, because he's "not asking anyone to look at [his] games" his style is based on developing his pieces and attacking.
Can't tell if serious or trolling...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dvoretsky
"Similarly, it was said that established grandmasters could become champions under his tutelage and his student register began to read like a 'who's who' of chess greats. Garry Kasparov, Viswanathan Anand, Veselin Topalov, Evgeny Bareev, Joël Lautier and Loek van Wely are among the players who benefited from his coaching. Four of his students went on to become Junior World Champions."
I'm not asking anyone to look at my games, but I can tell you I like to develop my pieces, then attack, obviously looking for mate. I think a draw is a disappointment from the outset, but a draw against a higher rating or from a lost position is a win, my opinion. Do these details determine a style or am I off base completely?
I've read that we all have a style.