I've been reading alot of sources that talk about chess style, and how you need to determine your chess style and work with your strengths and weaknesses and blah blah blah. I'm a little confused on the subject of chess style. I understand there are passive styles and aggresive styles but I would like someone to expound on these ideas and talk about the ways I which I would go about determining my style of play. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Originally posted by dmenacherChess style isn't something you really need to worry about until you are 1800+....style comes after a deep understanding of endgames and middlegames..basically you still have a lot of studying to do before you get to that point..
I've been reading alot of sources that talk about chess style, and how you need to determine your chess style and work with your strengths and weaknesses and blah blah blah. I'm a little confused on the subject of chess style. I understand there are passive styles and aggresive styles but I would like someone to expound on these ideas and talk about the ways I which I would go about determining my style of play. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Originally posted by dmenacherDont worry about this in the slightest. Determining your style is not a precusor to developing your game, it is a consequence of it. You will soon determine whether you are aggressive and attacking, or measured and defensive. Only once you have developed your chess career for some time do you need to start worrying about this. Play according to your instincts. You will soon find out if it doesn't work (ie too many attacks peter out, or you spend so long defending you always get overwhelmed etc)
I've been reading alot of sources that talk about chess style, and how you need to determine your chess style and work with your strengths and weaknesses and blah blah blah. I'm a little confused on the subject of chess style. I understand there are passive styles and aggresive styles but I would like someone to expound on these ideas and talk about the ways I which I would go about determining my style of play. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Originally posted by dmenacherGood moves are always in style.
I've been reading alot of sources that talk about chess style, and how you need to determine your chess style and work with your strengths and weaknesses and blah blah blah. I'm a little confused on the subject of chess style. I understand there are passive styles and aggresive styles but I would like someone to expound on these ideas and talk about the ways I which I would go about determining my style of play. Any help is greatly appreciated.
The "styles" of play tend to be determined by the openings. For example, if it is a gambit opening it is unlikely that one player will be able to block up the board and play for a slow win (apart from the benko gambit sometimes, and maybe others...) as the game tends to be more open.
d4 type systems (including Nf3 and c4) tend not to have such violent activity and you can take your time picking at small weakneses rather then trying to deliver a knockout blow in a single combination.
You will know your personal style when you get into the positions - it is a type of game where you feel most comfortable playing.
Originally posted by chessisvanityAnd Reti rolls over in his grave. Your "style", if you insist on calling it that, is more that of someone who makes a bunch of truly weakening and pointless pawn moves. That is not "hyper-modern". Game 4397526 is a perfect example, since you push the same pawns every game regardless of whether or not (usually not) it accomplishes anything, and succeed only in quickly getting mated here even after your opp gives you a free piece.
closed hyper modern with my opponent having the center for me.
For instance, what is the point of 6. a6? Are you so worried about a piece getting to b5 (from where it can accomplish squat in that position) that you're willing to waste a tempo and create a weakness for no end? Obviously its not to create space with b5, since you never push it. And why 7... b6? This is yet another self-inflicted weakness that accomplishes nothing in regards to the center or anything else. And even after your opp pushes d5 you still play 9... Bb7. What is this glorified pawn doing on b7 and how is it aiding in the fight for the center when you are imprisoning it on a useless square?
Lastly, what kind of crack have you been smoking to play f5 when your opp has castled Qside, your K is still in the center (and can now only O-O at the expense of immediate suicide), and your opp has a R on f1?
That's not "hyper-modern" chess. That's formation crap where you just play the same stupid junk moves every single game no matter how bad they are (and in this case, outright terminal despite the fact you're a piece up).
Anyway, since you have no concept at all of what hyper-modern is and since clearly nobody's ever explained it to you, I will - though I doubt it'll do any good since I suspect you'll simply sneer at this and continue playing the same senseless garbage opening moves that you are now. But here it goes anyway:
To start, when you play a hyper-modern opening you are temporarily allowing your opponent to occupy the center. But he doesn't ever get it for free. While your opponent is busy setting up his occupation of it with pawns, you are just as busy preparing to undermine it as soon as possible. To that end, you play moves that actually aim at the center (as opposed to the a3/a6 and h3/h6 you play every single game which, more often than not, aim at doing SFA other than wasting time and giving your opp free weakness to exploit).
To that end, you also have to have a pawn break in mind since its pawns, and not pieces, that are the best shock-troops at breaking up a center composed of other pawns. Once again, a6/a3 and h6/h3 do absolutely nothing toward hitting at the center since they are as far removed from the center as you can get. Putting a B in a fianchetto where it exerts long-range pressure on the center can be a hyper-modern idea, but not when you simply imprison the piece there with no purpose in mind.
And yes, in the KID and such black fianchettos a B which he apparently imprisons with a later e5, but there is a purpose there. And this is the second thing you really need to grasp if you ever aspire to actually taking a hyper-modern approach (rather than playing the crap you play now, whatever you call it), which is that it is your opp who who decides to close the center, and not you, and that he does so because the altrernative is too costly. Usually the alternative involves a fianchettoed piece suddenly breathing fire down the long diagonal and/or his center being completely ruined. If he elects to close the center, then you get to play on the wing with a pawn storm and he will do the same on the other side of the board. Whoever breaks through first will usually win. In such a case the "bad" KID B serves some purpose by guarding the weak dark squares around black's K.
Anyway that's a long enough rant for right now.
Editted to correct most of the typos.
One other thing to add to what I said in my last paragraph, without editing that already lengthy post: if you're truly playing "hyper-modern" with one or more Bs in a fianchetto and if its your opp who decides to try and pry open the center, as in the game I posted where he played d5 then you really need to ask yourself what you're doing wrong. Because if he's willing to allow your fianchettoed Bs to come to life, and if its you who have to respond by closing the center (as you did with e5), then one of you clearly has no strategic understanding of what's going on.
In the game I posted that someone would be you. You have wasted so much time there with weak, pointless moves that your opp doesn't care about his center or any life your fianchettoed pieces might get, because he's convinced it'll be too short to matter. He's willing to open it up because your position is so full of holes and weaknesses that its really his pieces that'll spring to life.
Originally posted by MahoutSorry but that rant of mine was a long time coming. He is one of the most opinionated and prolific posters here in the chess forum, yet its obvious to anyone who glances at a few of his games that he understands absolutely nothing about chess. Which I could forgive were he not, again, so prolific and opinionated a poster. And were his oh so vocal opinions not such total rubbish (like his comparing himself to Benko).
Don't hold back Scandium...tell it like it is!
If he insists on "contributing" to this thread by declaring he has a "style", then he should be honest and call it what it is. If he'd simply said his "style" was to waste as much time in the opening as possible with passive, inactive moves while waiting and hoping his opp will drop a piece in the meantime (not that this in itself guarantees he'll win, see the game I posted), then that's fine. Its honest, its accurate, I would have chuckled but wouldn't have responded. But to assert that he has a "hyper-modern" style... I just couldn't let that go.