What's the opposite of 'sharp' in chess?
Sergey Karjakin.
Strategic
Not sharp
Technical?
As an OLD player, I can tell you than many positions and openings that once were considered sharp are now considered drawish, dull, not to play if you are looking for a win, safe, etc. The same is true for a number of old lines that are now infused with new ideas and as sharp as any. Even today you hear about lines that are generally described as ok for the club player but not played by players of the highest levels, Then you read about some top level player using a new idea in just that position to clobber another top rated player. My thought is that if you are playing a person rated higher than yourself you should consider even the most innocent of positions to hold sharp threats that your opponent can see if you don't treat it as a sharp position. Unless you can correctly count forcing moves to a checkmate, or known winning/drawing endgame position, it is sharp.
REAL CHESS.
SHOTS FIRED, GET REKT YOU "TACTICAL PLAYERS", ONLY THE KARPOVS WILL PREVAIL.
Boring
Sergey Karjakin.
Dull?
sexy...
Quiet
Does anyone use 'blunt'? Dull and quiet seem closest, but dull seems to indicate a boring game, which Karpov v. Tarinin, for example, is anything but. Quiet is good, but doesn't really contrast to 'sharp' very well.
The term 'sharp', meaning requiring highly accurate play from both players, is common in chess. It's used to describe both positions and openings, with openings like the Sicilian Najdorf, for example, are classified as 'sharp', since in many variations, deviation from the best sequence can quickly lead to disaster for either player.
Is there a term for positions that are the opposite of sharp? In many lines of the Ruy Lopez, for example, there might be half a dozen 'good' moves at many junctures of the game. Some of these may be better than others, but all are acceptable play. Is there an accepted term for openings and positions?