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!
[Event "It (cat.16), Tilburg (Netherlands)"] [Site "It (cat.16), Tilburg (Netherlands)"] [Date "1996.??.??"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "11"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Anatoli Karpov"] [Black "Peter Leko"] [ECO "D97"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "57"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4 O-O 7. e4 a6 8. e5 Nfd7 9. Be3 Nb6 10. Qc5 Be6 11. Ng5 Bf5 12. Be2 Kh8 13. g4 Bc8 14. O-O-O f6 15. Nge4 f5 16. gxf5 Bxf5 17. h4 N8d7 18. Qa3 Nd5 19. Ng5 N7b6 20. h5 Nxe3 21. fxe3 Bh6 22. Nce4 Qd7 23. hxg6 Qc6+ 24. Kd2 Qxg6 25. Rdg1 Rad8 26. e6 Rxd4+ 27. exd4 Bxe4 28. Rxh6 Qxh6 29. Qe3 1-0
A master improves his position and trades down to a won endgame!
[Event "Belzberg Simul"] [Site "London ENG"] [Date "2003.10.20"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "?"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Garry Kasparov"] [Black "Jonathan Wilson"] [ECO "A35"] [WhiteElo "2830"] [BlackElo "2303"] [PlyCount "111"] 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 e6 5. d4 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 7. Bb5 Bd6 8. O-O O-O 9. dxc5 Bxc5 10. b3 a6 11. Bxc6 bxc6 12. Bb2 Bd6 13. Rc1 Bg4 14. Ne2 Bxf3 15. gxf3 Rc8 16. Qd3 Nd7 17. Ng3 Be5 18. Ba3 Re8 19. f4 Bf6 20. Rc2 Qa5 21. Bc1 g6 22. Rd1 h5 23. Bd2 Qb5 24. Bc3 Qxd3 25. Rxd3 Bxc3 26. Rcxc3 Kf8 27. Rd4 h4 28. Ne2 Nf6 29. Rc5 Nd7 30. Ra5 Ra8 31. Kg2 Ke7 32. Rda4 Nb8 33. e4 dxe4 34. Rxe4+ Kd7 35. Rxe8 Kxe8 36. Nd4 Ke7 37. Nf3 Kd6 38. Ne5 Ra7 39. Nc4+ Ke6 40. Kh3 Nd7 41. Kxh4 c5 42. f3 Kd5 43. Kg5 Nf8 44. f5 gxf5 45. Ne3+ Kc6 46. Nxf5 Ne6+ 47. Kf6 Nd4 48. h4 Nxf5 49. Kxf5 Kb6 50. Ra4 Rd7 51. Kf6 Rd4 52. Rc4 Rd2 53. h5 Rf2 54. Rh4 Rxf3+ 55. Ke7 Re3+ 56. Kf8 1-0
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.