Chess Playing Styles

I'm a psycho.

I'm a patzer...
😞

Well, I'm clearly a psycho AND a patzer.

how about

The Retard: Stuck in the constant mindset that he's playing a game of Suicidal Chess.

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
I was thinking to myself, what are the different playing styles and what characterises them? Most would say there is just two styles - tactical and positional but I have come to the conclusion that there are, in fact, distinct sub groups which I will list here but would like anybody who thinks they know something I have missed to add to this topic. ...[text shortened]... are usually good defenders, but they tend to break down once the position becomes unbalanced.

Astute post to be sure, but if all such neatly categorized pigeon holes of stylistic play were to be summarily eliminated... wouldn't it follow that virtually all chess players would reflect a 'procrustean bed in the desert' sameness of personality and that most all of their chess games would result in clinical, colorless sameness and probably draw?

I have two to add

The Desperado

Plays a mix of tactical and strategical, but when things aren't going his/her way, starts to randomly attack in the hope of a quick kill.

The Adapter
Equally adept in Position and tactical situations, he/she will adapt his style based on the strengths and weaknesses of his/her opponent

Originally posted by chesskid001
I have two to add

The Desperado

Plays a mix of tactical and strategical, but when things aren't going his/her way, starts to randomly attack in the hope of a quick kill.

The Adapter
Equally adept in Position and tactical situations, he/she will adapt his style based on the strengths and weaknesses of his/her opponent

1) the patzer.

2) the misguided patzer.

Originally posted by chesskid001
I have two to add

The Desperado

Plays a mix of tactical and strategical, but when things aren't going his/her way, starts to randomly attack in the hope of a quick kill.

The Adapter
Equally adept in Position and tactical situations, he/she will adapt his style based on the strengths and weaknesses of his/her opponent

Desperado, think you nailed it. Wouldn't "adaptive" quite possibly, by classical definition, describe the mode (on and off the board) of a consistent winning style? Pareto's Curve, 80/20 split, still applies... 10-20% of the styles seem to get 80-90% of the real work done. Agree?

My goof. Weak eyes meant to connect the 'adaptive' comment with your thread, chesskid001.

I don't think there is much difference in playing styles of those in the higher rankings. There are moves that are safer, meaning that they like the safe route and then there are the players who take a chance and take routes to which they are less able to calculate.

Originally posted by kmac27
I don't think there is much difference in playing styles of those in the higher rankings. There are moves that are safer, meaning that they like the safe route and then there are the players who take a chance and take routes to which they are less able to calculate.

It tends to look like they are playing safer, but often there are subtle traps that each player is setting and their opponant is spotting them and taking appropriate evasive measures. It tends to continue like this for a while until either somebody cracks and makes a blunder, the games moves towards a position where a win can be forced (often in endgames) or the play gets sucked right out of the game and a draw comes up.

The 'styles' used tend to be based on what opening was played and how each player reacted to the moves played.