Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 11 Jul '11 09:18 / 1 edit
    when watching the master game TV series it struck me how the masters commented on the position in purely subjective terms, Spassky, 'yes i like my position very much', Karpov, 'i like this position, its good for me'. etc etc when i was telling a dear friend about my endeavours to forge an opening repertoire he commented that it would have been better to go to database and find positions from that opening that I liked (again a subjective approach) and it must be better to steer the game into positions that one is comfortable playing. My question is, how does one know what kind of positions one likes playing? Now this seems an absurdity, for it has to do with self knowledge, but its just not that easy, for we may delude ourselves, we are prone to aberration, we may mimic another's style out of devotion etc so how did you guys find out what positions you liked to play? did you do like a statistical analysis of your results with closed v open games v semi open games? sharp lines v slower lines? how did you do it? or could it be like me, you dont really know what you like?
  2. 11 Jul '11 09:42
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    when watching the master game TV series it struck me how the masters commented on the position in purely subjective terms, Spassky, 'yes i like my position very much', Karpov, 'i like this position, its good for me'. etc etc when i was telling a dear friend about my endeavours to forge an opening repertoire he commented that it would have been bette ...[text shortened]... ower lines? how did you do it? or could it be like me, you dont really know what you like?
    I formed my repertoire, if such a grand title befits playing 1. g3 or 1. ... g6 at every opportunity, in the late 1970s and early 1980s so I had no databases to help. How did I find positions I liked? I played! If I won or felt comfortable in the positions I got I did it again. Simples as a certain African weasle would say.
  3. 11 Jul '11 10:31
    A strong IM on ICC once said to me there is no such thing as having a style at our Patzer level. He said only when you get to stong GM does it truly reflect in game play.

    ..which I thought was interesting..
  4. Donation ketchuplover
    G.O.A.T.
    11 Jul '11 11:43
    interesting..........................but shtoopid!
  5. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    11 Jul '11 15:56
    Originally posted by plopzilla
    A strong IM on ICC once said to me there is no such thing as having a style at our Patzer level. He said only when you get to stong GM does it truly reflect in game play.

    ..which I thought was interesting..
    Kasparov would say there is no such thing as a strong IM...
  6. 11 Jul '11 17:07
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    Kasparov would say there is no such thing as a strong IM...
    That's funny. Touche.
  7. 11 Jul '11 17:14
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    when watching the master game TV series it struck me how the masters commented on the position in purely subjective terms, Spassky, 'yes i like my position very much', Karpov, 'i like this position, its good for me'. etc etc when i was telling a dear friend about my endeavours to forge an opening repertoire he commented that it would have been bette ...[text shortened]... ower lines? how did you do it? or could it be like me, you dont really know what you like?
    Knowing positions that you like and having the confidence that you know positions that you like may be two different issues.

    For me, it is more about positions I am familiar including nuances. And I like a more direct classical style of play, as that is what I am more familiar and have a greater win percentage. If I do something post hyper-modern, I am not familiar and more likely to lose. I also don't like gambits, and may very-well be missing something there. I like to maintain even material or be a pawn up, and then force trading of material to play the end game especially if I am up the pawn obvioulsy. I do really enjoy to refute a gambit. Survive the attack and end-up with the extra material brings pleasure.

    I see your point about looking at the databases for the positions I am familiar and like.
  8. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    11 Jul '11 17:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    Kasparov would say there is no such thing as a strong IM...
    DD he probably would.


    yeah, I don't know about subjectiveness. when a karpov says he 'likes' a position, I'm pretty sure he doesn't use the word in the same meaning as liking a certain brand of beer. 99% of what he 'likes' in it is concretely based on EVERYTHING he's come to learn of handling such positions over the decades. 'liking' is just a shorthand for a lenghty & detailed essay he'd have to write if he really was to say what he actually meant by 'liking' it.

    the IM's comment was probably targeted against the usual denial & defensive excuses us low rated players tend to retreat to when criticized. "it's my STYLE, not just simply bad chess".

    'playing the openings you like' is more about feeling comfortable in some type of positions in contrast to others. it depends both on your temperament and your strengths. basically it means 'do what you're best at'. it's not that much about 'liking'. although the latter tends to follow the previous, as we usually tend to start liking things if the results are good. we're just chess-playing pavlov's dogs.
  9. 11 Jul '11 20:36
    Originally posted by wormwood
    DD he probably would.


    yeah, I don't know about subjectiveness. when a karpov says he 'likes' a position, I'm pretty sure he doesn't use the word in the same meaning as liking a certain brand of beer. 99% of what he 'likes' in it is concretely based on EVERYTHING he's come to learn of handling such positions over the decades. 'liking' is just a sho ...[text shortened]... ings if the results are good. we're just chess-playing pavlov's dogs.
    thanks for your input guys , its really great and not nearly as easy to answer as i had suspected, i think these questions must be asked, do you like open or closed position, pawn play or piece play, pawns supported by pieces or pieces supported by pawns, attacks on the kingside against a castled monarch, or attempts at inducing structural damage on the queenside, strategical play or tactical play, classical or hypermodern, , clear positions or irrational ones, simple positions to complicated ones. Someone should compile a test to determine which type of play our temperament is best suited to. Now of course i am not saying that it will make any difference to playing strength, but it must help to to fight in familiar territory rather than be ambushed in a foreign land.
  10. 11 Jul '11 20:45
    When they say they like the position, what they mean is "I think I have the advantage here".
  11. 11 Jul '11 20:53 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by greenerpawn
    When they say they like the position, what they mean is "I think I have the advantage here".
    yes that may be true, however consider this, greenpawn34 plays the Latvian why? because it gives him an advantage or he likes sharp open tactical play. Caissad4 plays the French defence against e4 why? because it gives her an advantage or she likes that type of game?
  12. 11 Jul '11 21:26
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes that may be true, however consider this, greenpawn34 plays the Latvian why? because it gives him an advantage or he [b]likes sharp open tactical play. Caissad4 plays the French defence against e4 why? because it gives her an advantage or she likes that type of game?[/b]
    Both perhaps. I can quite believe that GP would like the Latvian because of the potential for tactical hooliganism, but I suspect that his liking for such positions also gives him a real advantage.
  13. 11 Jul '11 21:50
    Originally posted by greenerpawn
    When they say they like the position, what they mean is "I think I have the advantage here".
    "I think I have the advantage here."

    Apparently, it is both an objective and subjective comment?

    Objective in the sense that it is possibly an independent assessment for any player in that position?

    Subjective in the sense that the position is better for them personally, i.e., it is the type of position they like or are more familiar with or is more conducive to their style of play?
  14. 11 Jul '11 23:37
    asking oneself 'what do i like' ... it is a question for some most difficult to answer. some say it right out, others feel self-doubt or the rise of self-delusion. if your mind blocks you from clearly feeling what you like, you must find a way to empty your mind, to be free of it... not for everyone 'having an advantage' equals 'like to play'.

    thats enough of meditation for today.
    T.
  15. 12 Jul '11 05:38
    Do you like an open or closed board?

    Do you like sequential plans or complicated, asymmetrical situations?

    Happier with most of the pieces on the board or do you prefer to simplify through piece-reduction?

    Do you like making bold sacs to open things up or are you more of a defensive player?

    I'd ask these questions if I wanted to steer the game towards my style of play and make moves accordingly.