Chess Forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| roland_l 9/15/2004 04:03:39 [ report this post ] |
 Subject: Personal Style DevelopmentMessage: I would like to hear what some of you folks out there think about the idea of 'style of play' (ie positional, tactical, etc. etc.) More specifically, do you think individuals have an 'innate' style of play they are born with, or is it simply a matter of study and development? If you DO believe that certain people/intellects/personality types may be more suited to a different style, how would you suggest 'finding your style', and/or developing it? |
| snake_man 9/15/2004 05:12:40 [ report this post ] | well... Message: With me, I think that is has to do w/ success. I refer to myself as a fairly agressive player who likes wide open games. Why? For whatever reason, I seem to have better success (if one can really call my 36% winning percentage successful :-)) with those types of games. So to me it stands to reason that I try to force many of my games as open as I can as early as I can. |
| dysfl 9/15/2004 09:28:24 [ report this post ] | Booking up or not Message: At my level (around 1500 in GK), I have played with many styles. One of the factor is if you prefer reading books or annotated games than learn by playing more games with various opponents. Balancing might be the correct answer, but it's up to the personal taste and time constraints. Usually, people learned chess by just playing it provides me more challenge as it is unpredictable. Personally, I don't see the tactical games or positional play can be a style till some level. Most of my games deviate from book at move 4 to 7, and becoming tactical, even I prefer positonal play. |
| qistnix 9/15/2004 10:58:40 [ report this post ] | personal style development Message: developing your style is like choosing from the 3 different kinds of M&M;'s: you try them all and in the end you stick to the one you like best... :) |
| ccmcacollister 9/15/2004 20:38:11 [ report this post ] | For me .... Message: I like to pick a GM and model my play after them. To where I feel that I can pull out a "Tal-move" or "Bronstein-move" etc, even in an unfamiliar position. Not to say that always happens. (Or suppose I'd be 2500+ !) But the attempt to is part of the fun [8-) I do have a "Tal-Game" from Corr now, where I was able to offer 2 different pieces on the same move, as sacs. Then would sac another N or R in some lines. And ultimately, it turned out to be not unsound, but he could have equalized it with a single sequence, had he found it .... So I thought it Very Tal-like 8-). An it was quite pleasing. Even in having an "out" for the opponent...made it feel all the more charming to me. In its Tallness :) A BL King's Indian. |
| muppyman 9/15/2004 22:50:20 [ report this post ] | For me... Message: I wish I could pick a GM who would model his games after me :)) boy would I be good. Unfortunately most of my games seem to start out pathetic, and then rapidly deteriorate. Happily, I still love the game deeply enough to enjoy it regardless of my style or lack thereof. |
| soikins 9/16/2004 00:50:23 [ report this post ] | Philosophical question Message: IMO this is one of the most important things that one can ask in chess. One of the reasons why I play chess is because it helps me understand myself, my way of thinking. When analysing my games I ask myself -- why did I play this move, which move came first to my mind, why I even didn't consider this move? What does it tell about my way of thinking? Can this be noticed in other areas of my activity? Your style shows every time you have to make a decision over the board, but especially it shows in key moments of the game, ask yourself -- what move did I consider first? For example I play black it is some kind of Queens Gambit Declined, I haven't castled yet. White plays e5 -- attacks my knight on f6. My first consideration is Nfd7. Then I notice that d5 is a free square for the knight, so I will move my knight there. But my first idea was to move it back -- to safety, maybe I considered it only for a half second, but I did consider such a move. In this case I might not even consider a move like Ng4, cause h3 would make me play Nh6 (at least I would think so). But maybe for some other player Ng4 would be the first move he considers, cause he is willing to sacrifice the knight after 1. Ng4 h3 2. h5!? It is all in the style. Is chess style connected to ones character? How are they connected? There are different examples -- nice, calm people in life -- sacrificing pieces at the board; nervous persons doing the same; agressive man in life -- playing positional chess. Dr. psyh. (and a strong chess player) Krogius has written about these questions in his books. They are very interesting problems that go far beyond chess itself. |
| baseline 9/17/2004 10:43:10 [ report this post ] | Message: Truely style is an elusive topic, I don't think most people chose a style. They chose lines and methods that work for them and lines and methods that appeal to them. Most non professionals have some serious playing faults so its difficult to ascribe a style to them. I know that in blitz my serious flaw it to get carried away with my own plans and forget my opponet has plans of his own! :o) |
Post a reply to this message: |
