Originally posted by wormwoodSo are you saying that Karpov could play the Black side of the King's Indian Defence and Sicilian Najdorf as well as Kasparov could? And that Kasparov could play the Caro-Kann equally as well as Karpov? I don't think so. Kasparov has said himself that he excels best in dynamic positions and everyone knows Karpov's main strength is to slowly "squeeze opponents to death". If they were equal in all aspects of the game then why did they both consistently play in different ways!
different styles doesn't mean they couldn't do every aspect of chess equally well.
Originally posted by Varenkabecause. of. different. styles! 🙂
So are you saying that Karpov could play the Black side of the King's Indian Defence and Sicilian Najdorf as well as Kasparov could? And that Kasparov could play the Caro-Kann equally as well as Karpov? I don't think so. Kasparov has said himself that he excels best in dynamic positions and everyone knows Karpov's main strength is to slowly "squeeze oppon ...[text shortened]... qual in all aspects of the game then why did they both consistently play in different ways!
it never was like kasparov could just dominate karpov, instead they were always almost equal. after a little googling, their lifetime match score was 73-71 slightly better for kasparov. I think that's remarkably even, and shows that no matter what the other could throw on the board, the other could handle.
In almost any opening there are positional, sharp, tactical, and sharp positional lines which can be played.
The player which dictates where the game goes has the better chance.
If you really are a "tactical" player then don't mind playing moves which give you IQP's or doubled pawns(with comp for the weaknesses of course) look over fischer's games especially to see how the dynamics can be played out. On youtube there are some great videos by letsplaychess.com on youtube(specifically kingscrusher or kingcrusher videos are the best imhop
Originally posted by erikidoAgree. Plus kingcrusher has the best accent to boot.
On youtube there are some great videos by letsplaychess.com on youtube(specifically kingscrusher or kingcrusher videos are the best imhop
It would be like playing a game in a pub and somebody comes over and says "Ouu I dont think you wanna be doin' that".
Not long ago I had a chess epiphany. I've realized that for the most part "style" is a myth.
There are times when you must strengthen your position, there are times you must attack, and there are times when you must circle the wagons and defend.
A master attacks!
A master improves his position and trades down to a won endgame!
Is what we call "style" something that is inherent in a player, or is it just the right answer to a position OTB?
I came to this conclusion after reading over Tal and realizing the depth of his positional knowledge. Sure he would sac if it looked promising, but he had to had very deep positional knowledge to create that situation.
I'd say that there are two actually kinds of chess "style" and I don't admire either one of them as a stand alone way to play.
There is Shirov's method of Chaos Magic where he intentionally creates unclear complications in the hope he trips his opponent up.
And there is Petrosian who spends so much time equalizing his opponent's attacks that he neglects to create one for himself.
Shirov gets punished for his manner of play often by losing to weaker opponents, and inconsistent results.
Petrosian's method has it's drawbacks as well in the fact that he scored more draws than wins and losses combined. One would think that if he took a creative risk, he would win more.
I think the ideal player is one who could play like Petrosian some times, and Shirov at others, just depending on what the situation called for.