What is chess style???.

Each GM has a chess style, some are good attackers others are good defenders. It's obvious to see differences between Murphy and Karpov.
-
But when I think in my own games, I can't identify what is my chess style.
-
Maybe weaker players (like me) don't have any "chess style".
-
So what steps I have to follow to discover my "chess personality" ?????

I've always believed that there are 2 ultimate styles to the game:
Positional (e.g. Karpov) and Tactical (e.g. Kasparov)

Your profile, Schlecter, makes me think that you are more of a tactical player,
and perhaps not so disciplined on the positional side of the game.
I mean c'mon, having 1.b4 as your whole repertoire with white is just asking for trouble 😛

Me personally, for quite a while, I also didn't know what style I leaned towards.
But over time, I realised that I prefered solid, positionally stable games,
where I can gain a slight advantage and turn it into a win,
rather than engage in explosive, tactic-filled battles where I often don't fare so well.
I tried it occasionally when blitzing, and I usually blunder myself into defeats.

The trick is to try many different styles, play many games, and eventually you may find the one you best suit.

p.s. Do you fancy a game? You can have white, as long as you play 1.b4 😉

Years ago, in the early 1990s there was a new guy at the chess club. His name was Luke. He always played 1.b4 or 1.g4 and as black played 1...b5 or 1...g5. I called him Spike Grob or the Polish Orangutan. 🙂 It lead to many interesting games. Luke was very good at flank attacks. And if one is unwary, trouble and difficulties galore arise. Luke moved away. I always felt I owed him a debt of gratitude for forcing me to find ways out of his attacks and finding my own attack.

"If your opponent attacks a flank, go for the center." -My Coach

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
I've always believed that there are 2 ultimate styles to the game:
Positional (e.g. Karpov) and Tactical (e.g. Kasparov)

Your profile, Schlecter, makes me think that you are more of a tactical player,
and perhaps not so disciplined on the positional side of the game.
I mean c'mon, having 1.b4 as your whole repertoire with white is just asking f ...[text shortened]... one you best suit.

p.s. Do you fancy a game? You can have white, as long as you play 1.b4 😉

Thank you.

You are right about my positional skills..... I discover the positional rules very very late in my chess life.... so maybe tactics and a kind of "Hope Chess" is my "style".
-
My profile was true in the day that I wrote the lines, but today I have experimented with more openings for the white side: 1. c4 and 1. d4....
I can play 1. e4 but I don't feel "safe" with open games.

In reality I am very inconsitent in my RHP games....so I need to improve...a lot.

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
Years ago, in the early 1990s there was a new guy at the chess club. His name was Luke. He always played 1.b4 or 1.g4 and as black played 1...b5 or 1...g5. I called him Spike Grob or the Polish Orangutan. 🙂 It lead to many interesting games. Luke was very good at flank attacks. And if one is unwary, trouble and difficulties galore arise. Luke moved away ...[text shortened]... s and finding my own attack.

"If your opponent attacks a flank, go for the center." -My Coach

1.b4 is a decent opening. I had always closed positions, The king is safe and tactics opportunities in both flanks .... the opponents are always busy trying to stop the pawns in the queen side....

If you don't feel safe playing e4 then play e4.

Tackle your demons kind of thing.

Although my advice is probably bad I detest d4. And have refused to play it. Maybe I should lol.

Originally posted by 1shooter
If you don't feel safe playing e4 then play e4.

Tackle your demons kind of thing.

Although my advice is probably bad I detest d4. And have refused to play it. Maybe I should lol.

That's good advice.

I switched to 1.e4 for a bit, it was good fun.

It made it easier to beat weaker players, I could win faster too. But against players my own strength it was harder than normal.

I'm just not that great at attacking kings. I'd rather snatch some material, defend for a bit (if I have to), then win the ending.

That's my play style.

Positional v Tacical Styles.

Good players have all round styles and must be good at both.
Petrosian was an acknowledge brilliant tacticain by his peers.

Claiing to be of either style is wrong.
You cannot be OK at one without being OK at the other.
Sometimes you can take anti-positional risks of a tactical nature
but only if the position demands it. (ie...you are losing and want to fight.)

Some claim they are purley positional players. This is silly.

These so called positional players set about their task of building
up a superior position with tactical threats. (you have to good at both.)
If their tactical threat is unspotted or allowed then their positional plan
has to be stopped or paused until they deal with the tactics.

I'm forming the opinion that there are two types chess player.
The Optimist and The Pessimist.

Does the caveman style have any positional elements?

Arsene wenger said there are 2 types of footballers. Those who want to win who are strikers and those who cant stand losing who are typically defenders.

Probably these two mind sets exist in chess. My own personal greatest improvement came from realising that early draws merely took away from enjoyment of the next two hours regardless of result.

IMO, chess 'style' basically comes down to the degree of risk that the player's comfortable with.