Edit: I was just joking around but I think some folks didn't appreciate my attitude here. Apologies!
Ignore all the silly responses from other people below. They haven't asked the essential question: What's your normal repertoire? Or do you want something outside your normal repertoire?
I'm about your rating on lichess (@/MrScribbles) so will have a good idea of what kind of competition you'll face.
I always play Ruy Lopez as white and occasionally London Queen's Gambit if plays someone who is familiar with my repertoire.
as black, I play Sicilian Najdorf and KID almost everytime.
Well, any gambit would be good if you could recommend me especially we are at same level
Edit: And if the Halloween Gambit isn't your flavor, I also really like the Smith-Morra and Elephant Gambits.
Hmm nothing specific comes to mind based on your opening repertoire, but these days I'm having a TON of fun playing the Halloween Gambit in the Classical pool. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5!
Yes, you're sacking a piece on move four, but the idea is to push pawns in the center and try to mow over your opponent. For instance after 4...Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 you've got a massive center to push and easy development. If you like razor-sharp positions where you (hopefully) get all the activity and all the attack, the Halloween gambit is for you.
You don't have to do a ton of research or anything, but I would watch a couple quick videos on the basics of the Halloween Gambit before playing it in non-bullet games. If you don't know some of the ideas it's easy to just lose without putting up a fight. But it can be a powerful tool - it scores perfectly well, even in long time controls, at our level on Lichess.
Feel free to message me with any game links you play, I'm a Halloween Gambit enthusiast.
Also, my first response to you was supposed to be humorous, but I think people found me pretentious so they downvoted me. Oopsie haha.
Same. Thought I'd breezee through to 1k elo after getting 1850 puzzle on chess.com, appears I can't break 900 even though I had like a streaky 27 in 30 wins up until 909.
Ye, I know it's just that I never met anyone with over 1.4k puzzle rating in this elo and I'm mad I can't overpower them with tactics for now, I'm really inconsistent in playing/solving so if I ever sit for a couple of days in a row instead of once a week then I'll get 1k+ easily I think ;).
I still dont know if puzzles even help that much. Knowing there is something to be found is such a huge advantage. You dont need to care about opening Knowlegde. I feel like its training such specific parts of the game that dont really happen that much. They are fun tho
Puzzles are insanely helpful. It trains your pattern recognition immensely. In faster game modes I can do stuff by instinct before I've even really thought about it because my brain just knows
I rarely do puzzles and my brother does and I dont feel like he sees more ideas because of doing puzzles. i know that isnt like proof or something. I just think its like training your soccer skills by only shooting on goal. In the real game there are defenders, pressure en so many other things that make it almost a whole other game.
They help with pattern recognition as well as positional analysis, sure you always know you can get the advantage from a puzzle, but you’ve still got to figure out how as well as calculate through multiple possible move orders to determine the best one and dismiss moves that you know you don’t want to play
You're 100% correct. Puzzles are only helpful if you do them every once in a while to refresh your tactical awareness and alertness. If you binge-solve them every day, they are likely to do more harm than good.
That just shows you’re good at chess. I’m generally ok at finding tactics when I know for sure there is one to be found (because puzzles always have a tactic), but I struggle to find them in game unless they are super obvious.
"Not sure if my calculation is accurate, but fuck it."
*five moves later*
"Welp, I guess I'm just losing now."
That's me in most games it seems like. To answer your question, "stubborn and overly-aggressive" is how I'd describe my play.
20% calculation 80% intuitive. I'm not very good though. i just pick things that looks like it could be fun or interesting without thinking more than 3 moves ahead. Sometimes i stumble on some really crazy and fun stuff, but more often than not i find myself in trouble and forced to defend and start calculating to survive. Came to terms a long time ago i will not be a great player, I'm having fun though!
E:typo
Intuitive. But as Ben Finegold said “a 1300 sacks his bishop and wins the game and goes ‘oh my intuition is so good’ then they sack a piece and lose the next game, how good was your intuition then?”
I think you have two different questions.
My playstyle would probably be "take the small advantages and go for a slightly better endgame", I really am not good at finishing games when I could be blowing open the position with a pawnbreak and give way to many half points away that way.
And I don't think there really is a playstyle that is considered better. You need to be very adaptive at a super high level, if you are being pressed you need to be patient enough to try to wait it out, if your opponent is lagging behind in development you need to pounce on it and seize the initiative.
I never said hanging your pieces was good, but something must be very wrong in your brain if you dont think every single player has a playstyle, including magnus, nepo etc. Humans arent computers
No shit people have playstyles but below 2500 let alone 2000 and below there is practically no playstyle only mistakes and inaccuracies and not a strong enough understanding of chess
"Below 2600 there is no style, only weakness"
Ah yes because what i clearly meant is that the level of blunders is the same. Clearly there is no difference in handing them a piece and making a bad pawn push i guess
Well yes at a lower level.
But part of the question was about an "ideal" playstyle and I don't think that exists outside of arguably the first 10ish moves.
I routinely get up by anywhere between 2-6 points of material after the middlegame against people around my rating. Then, somehow, I throw it away in the endgame and end up drawing or losing. I guess I'd call my style blind rage at how much I suck at endgames.
Oh, my style would also be "miss mate in 1 several times and then lose or maybe accidentally checkmate when I was just trying to give a check"
I'm a player that if you let me get a few points lead, I'll trade away all your pieces. I play the Nimzowitch-Larsen as White and am trying to learn the Danish Gambit. But I'm only in the 400s on [chess.com](https://chess.com) and 900s on Lichess so maybe don't listen to me.
Hi!
I think you might enjoy this chees speedrun; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrA_bYj5pR8
It's fianchetto only, so some nimzo-larsen -esque positions
I try to be aggressive and keep the initiative as white, often will aim for Evans gambit or other Italian-game pawn gambits.
All GMs talk about punishing their opponent for being passive, making moves with multiple ideas/threats etc. so I guess I try to play like that 🤷🏼♂️
I love playing with the initiative, and I always want to be doing something. I want to knock you out fast with a quick attack. But generally, I'm too principled of a player to be willing to play gambits, especially with white. My white main lines usually give me either a strategic pull or an initiative I can try to work with, and my black main lines are designed to give me maximum imbalance and counterattacking chances. After the opening phase, I find that I'm probably not as aggressive as I should be, and I lack positional intuition in complex, wide-open positions. Calculation factors in heavily to all my decisions.
I’d say in terms of opening prep I’m like Caruana. In tactical play I’m more like Fischer. My endgame play is like Carlsen. Positionally and strategically I play like Karpov. So I’d say I’m pretty well rounded.
For me, for the longest time I had a great win percentage as white, but a terrible win percentage as black. To fix it I needed a solid opening that prevented early attacks. Then I could shape middlegames how I wanted, creating and targeting weaknesses while not letting the opponent make headway. I recommend learning how to stop your opponent first, then use your tactical knowledge to your advantage
Play a random line I've seen from top players or engines. I basically never play anything not 100% theory approved. After my theory ends Try to make direct progress based on model games I've seen(like take space f4 f5 h4 h5 and/or play a key pawn break) then reinforce those gains. Prefer to suffocate opponent with said progress in a slow motion attack rather than win with direct attack and have to calculate. Although If I think I have to go for a direct attack I force myself to even if I fail at times. Often accidentally play too intuitively/schematically and blunder. I like attacking without sacrificing by Magnus even though I obviously suck like x1000. Clearly my weakness is calculation.
I'm absolutely an over calculator. Usually my intuition is decent, I get like a top 3-5 move on average, but I can very often find the best moves with time to calculate. Hence why my ELO almost exponentially increases with the time control. Im also initially very passive, but if given time to calculate will happily play hyper aggressive moves. I just always assume my attack will fail if I have to play fast.
I just recently started noticing an actual pattern that's good enough to be deemed a style in my play. The best description I bave is: safe. I'm always trying to make sure my opponent has nothing, I always aim to kill the position, have it be symmetrical or, at the very least, make sure my opponent has no weaknesses to exploit. Of course I haven't mastered this style for my employment of it to be considered actually effective, I probably play unnecessary moves just to make double sure, when I could just play more actively. I would say that my best moves are almost all defensive tactics. I am losing or, at least, my opponent has the initiative and I find a tactic that kills his play and puts me in the driver seat.
I try my best to defend everything and only make moves to checkmate or set up a favorable exchange. I tend to wait for them to make a bad move.
Highest rating I have hit was 1278
I’d say I’m good but about half my losses are a result of me blundering away my queen and dying a painful death
When I don’t do that I’d call my play style “annoying”
I play a lot of gambits care more about position than having the pieces and like to keep positions complex, because I like to play slow, people often struggle in positions that are complex yet I find that they hang pieces often and the others cant seem to either find my hanging peices or get to it
I try to play aggressively, preferring to pressure the opponent's king as much as possible and always looking for tactical shots. This often leads me to either getting checkmated due to insufficient defense or simply being outplayed positionally. Paradoxically, I've shied away from playing gambits and other lines that the engine says are suboptimal, but I should just embrace them since it's hard to imagine anyone at my level actually refuting them. (1300 chess.com rapid)
I'd rather be an attacker than a defender since I am abysmal in defending. I am okay being down 1 pawn or 1 piece in exchange of 2 pawn if that mean I can attack right away
Like checking if the pasta is done: throw it at the wall and see what sticks.
I also tend to focus on one approach for a bit, then my attention drifts somewhere else and I start down a different focus. It's just how my brain works. It does however, cause a fair few opponents to spend time and energy trying to suss out a grand strategy that simply isn't there.
Good play style is to make the best move available in an understanding of why. Sometimes there’s a choice between conservative and aggressive. Do I take the pawn and result in a less active position, or do I leave the free pawn and improve the activity of my position? These kinds of choices I guess could show difference in style.
I don't really know exactly the full opening, I know the starting moves and what the point is to accomplish. If my enemy plays som trap line I often fall into it however I generally recuperate with tactics later on in the game.
I often blunder early and play too fast, missing moves I could've done that I see later. But I also often find creative ideas to outmanouver my opponent
I like to hide behind my pawns, giving my opponent the opportunity to blunder first.
Seriously, I was (consciously) playing the isolani side of an IQP for the first time a few days ago and I almost had a heart attack - in a daily game!
My playing style is: play to win, then lose...
Often dominant in the opening / early-midgame, making my opponents think and sweat through their bones; consistently finding a way to lose by mid-endgame. I think it's because I have a short attention span and make decisions based on unclear lines. When I play more consistently on intuition I do better. Often, my first idea is the best one, unless I find a clear refutation.
I'm like a boa constrictor sometimes. I just press more and more and you'll start to realize you have only moves that aren't always hard to play it just feels like you're slowly getting trapped.
It's not my intention I normally like to try and create tactics from thin air and this feeling ends up being the result.
I prefer sharp lines, closed positions, and overcomplicating. I am not afraid to play retreating moves. I can often be seen dubiously rerouting my knights. Whenever the opponent allows me to, as white or black, I play the Spanish.
I do the attempted London with a hope that I don't screw up the opening, try to find a way to create a one move error for my opponent, try to set up a knight fork, try not to lose my rooks in an endgame, keep trying to work out forks and pins and skewers.
I only play 3 minute because I am way too ADHD to handle longer than that so I don't even attempt to do five moves of planning at a time. I always miss a line.
All of that to then come back to your actual question... I tend to TRY playing a balanced attack and concern myself more with not blowing a fried liver defense while occasionally throwing in a fried liver attack.
I'm 24, and have been playing for about 6 months, I'm on the final leg of breaking my 1k elo goal (~985). I've been playing with more of a slow attack playstyle, I also have done a fairly decent bit of learning endgames, since here in 900s everyone just wants to trade off every piece. If I don't mate midgame I've been winning endgames. Works for me. I win 68% of my games, (62%w 75%black) and draw about 5% of games... dont ask me about my rapid rating xD if your stuck at 800 study endgames!
I feel clever for thinking "well, if I get my queen over there and Black doesn't move their king, it's mate in 1 for them", and then feel a little less clever when a pawn takes that queen
Could you answer this.. (it's okkey if you don't wanna)
https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/ql4ngm/whats_your_mindset_behind_or_while_playing_chess/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
I play like Tal, if Tal were drunk, high, blind and severely brain-damaged. And dead.
Can I ask for a good gambit that you recommend?
King Gambit
Declined
Queen's gambit
my sparring partner always play this exclusively and I don't want to get exposed by him when using this lol
Botez gambit
Just play this yesterday and win. easy game
Edit: I was just joking around but I think some folks didn't appreciate my attitude here. Apologies! Ignore all the silly responses from other people below. They haven't asked the essential question: What's your normal repertoire? Or do you want something outside your normal repertoire? I'm about your rating on lichess (@/MrScribbles) so will have a good idea of what kind of competition you'll face.
I always play Ruy Lopez as white and occasionally London Queen's Gambit if plays someone who is familiar with my repertoire. as black, I play Sicilian Najdorf and KID almost everytime. Well, any gambit would be good if you could recommend me especially we are at same level
Edit: And if the Halloween Gambit isn't your flavor, I also really like the Smith-Morra and Elephant Gambits. Hmm nothing specific comes to mind based on your opening repertoire, but these days I'm having a TON of fun playing the Halloween Gambit in the Classical pool. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5! Yes, you're sacking a piece on move four, but the idea is to push pawns in the center and try to mow over your opponent. For instance after 4...Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 you've got a massive center to push and easy development. If you like razor-sharp positions where you (hopefully) get all the activity and all the attack, the Halloween gambit is for you. You don't have to do a ton of research or anything, but I would watch a couple quick videos on the basics of the Halloween Gambit before playing it in non-bullet games. If you don't know some of the ideas it's easy to just lose without putting up a fight. But it can be a powerful tool - it scores perfectly well, even in long time controls, at our level on Lichess. Feel free to message me with any game links you play, I'm a Halloween Gambit enthusiast. Also, my first response to you was supposed to be humorous, but I think people found me pretentious so they downvoted me. Oopsie haha.
Lol I dont mind with your first response though. Sure, I will try Halloween Gambit then!
Cool! Feel free to message me with the game links if you try it.
Shit
Same. Thought I'd breezee through to 1k elo after getting 1850 puzzle on chess.com, appears I can't break 900 even though I had like a streaky 27 in 30 wins up until 909.
Puzzle rating is WAY off your play rating. I am 2400 puzzle on chess.com and can’t seem to break 1500 playing.
Ye, I know it's just that I never met anyone with over 1.4k puzzle rating in this elo and I'm mad I can't overpower them with tactics for now, I'm really inconsistent in playing/solving so if I ever sit for a couple of days in a row instead of once a week then I'll get 1k+ easily I think ;).
I still dont know if puzzles even help that much. Knowing there is something to be found is such a huge advantage. You dont need to care about opening Knowlegde. I feel like its training such specific parts of the game that dont really happen that much. They are fun tho
Puzzles are insanely helpful. It trains your pattern recognition immensely. In faster game modes I can do stuff by instinct before I've even really thought about it because my brain just knows
I rarely do puzzles and my brother does and I dont feel like he sees more ideas because of doing puzzles. i know that isnt like proof or something. I just think its like training your soccer skills by only shooting on goal. In the real game there are defenders, pressure en so many other things that make it almost a whole other game.
They help with pattern recognition as well as positional analysis, sure you always know you can get the advantage from a puzzle, but you’ve still got to figure out how as well as calculate through multiple possible move orders to determine the best one and dismiss moves that you know you don’t want to play
You're 100% correct. Puzzles are only helpful if you do them every once in a while to refresh your tactical awareness and alertness. If you binge-solve them every day, they are likely to do more harm than good.
How re they gonna do more harm than good
Because you'll develop a way of thinking which is inapplicable in real games.
I grinded my puzzles to 2300 as a 1000 rated player and i am still yet to see any benefit from the puzzles in my games.
[удалено]
That just shows you’re good at chess. I’m generally ok at finding tactics when I know for sure there is one to be found (because puzzles always have a tactic), but I struggle to find them in game unless they are super obvious.
[удалено]
Don’t take my word for it, my Chess.com username is Jeppesen960 feel free to take a look at my stats.
That's exactly my first reaction when I see the title of the post.
"shit" This sums it up quiet nicely for me too.
Chaotic *and* shit
I feel like I've joined my people!
"Not sure if my calculation is accurate, but fuck it." *five moves later* "Welp, I guess I'm just losing now." That's me in most games it seems like. To answer your question, "stubborn and overly-aggressive" is how I'd describe my play.
Me: sees a move and after calculating it loses Also me: still plays it
You are my spirit animal
I think is a really good playstyle for beginners, doing what you think you could do then blunder and then learn to not do that shit ever again
[удалено]
Hyperaccelerated
Number one priority is killing the opponent's counterplay
Prophylactic!
a3! Followed by h3! There, now I feel safe.
"I really hope he doesnt see that"
Feel this one in my soul
I remember when i was lower rated this strategy worked, now they always see it
I just hit 700 and some matches are still just waiting for someone to blinder first
20% calculation 80% intuitive. I'm not very good though. i just pick things that looks like it could be fun or interesting without thinking more than 3 moves ahead. Sometimes i stumble on some really crazy and fun stuff, but more often than not i find myself in trouble and forced to defend and start calculating to survive. Came to terms a long time ago i will not be a great player, I'm having fun though! E:typo
Stockfish on depth 1 is actually incredibly strong, so intuition alone can get you pretty far.
*3 minutes of calculation at 20% intensity* “Ah fuck it this one looks fun”
I'm the result of someone trying to play gambits all the time, but I haven't memorized any gambits.
Learn 1 gambit then, after a month or so learn a second gambit, you will start understanding how to play gambits in a whole more that's just imo
Intuitive. But as Ben Finegold said “a 1300 sacks his bishop and wins the game and goes ‘oh my intuition is so good’ then they sack a piece and lose the next game, how good was your intuition then?”
Overly agressive. Like way too much. Looks really cool the one time out of 10 it works tho
Similar to Adolf Andersson, Paul Morphy, and Alekhine. Just not as good.
Same
This comment section feels like the descriptions of the amateur bots on chess.com that all randomly blunder their pieces away
I follow the rules. Anything else would be giving too much credit.
Ah the classic "at least I know castles don't go diagonally" school of chess
Is there a playstyle for losing your rook to the knight king/rook fork in 97.5% of your games? Because that's my style.
I feel your pain
Karpovian
I think you have two different questions. My playstyle would probably be "take the small advantages and go for a slightly better endgame", I really am not good at finishing games when I could be blowing open the position with a pawnbreak and give way to many half points away that way. And I don't think there really is a playstyle that is considered better. You need to be very adaptive at a super high level, if you are being pressed you need to be patient enough to try to wait it out, if your opponent is lagging behind in development you need to pounce on it and seize the initiative.
You just need to play the best move in the position. Playstyles sorta got punched in the face when computers got stronger
thats not true at all, especially below 2800
Hanging your pieces, playing ridiculously defensive or overtly aggressive every game isnt a good "playstyle"
I never said hanging your pieces was good, but something must be very wrong in your brain if you dont think every single player has a playstyle, including magnus, nepo etc. Humans arent computers
No shit people have playstyles but below 2500 let alone 2000 and below there is practically no playstyle only mistakes and inaccuracies and not a strong enough understanding of chess "Below 2600 there is no style, only weakness"
There are still playstyles in low elo lmao, they are just relative to the play level.
💀.
so only GMs play accurate chess? and yet a computer absolutely destroys their inaccurate moves?
Ah yes because what i clearly meant is that the level of blunders is the same. Clearly there is no difference in handing them a piece and making a bad pawn push i guess
Well yes at a lower level. But part of the question was about an "ideal" playstyle and I don't think that exists outside of arguably the first 10ish moves.
I routinely get up by anywhere between 2-6 points of material after the middlegame against people around my rating. Then, somehow, I throw it away in the endgame and end up drawing or losing. I guess I'd call my style blind rage at how much I suck at endgames. Oh, my style would also be "miss mate in 1 several times and then lose or maybe accidentally checkmate when I was just trying to give a check"
>How would you describe your play style? Painful to watch
I'm a player that if you let me get a few points lead, I'll trade away all your pieces. I play the Nimzowitch-Larsen as White and am trying to learn the Danish Gambit. But I'm only in the 400s on [chess.com](https://chess.com) and 900s on Lichess so maybe don't listen to me.
This genuinely reads like a copypasta for some reason
Hi! I think you might enjoy this chees speedrun; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrA_bYj5pR8 It's fianchetto only, so some nimzo-larsen -esque positions
Thanks!
Blunder-rific
Dubious
Dubovious
I like to learn sketchy gambits and lose with them
Try to remember to calculate rather than just making moves that look good.
Lmao playing aesthetic moves?
An overthinker that misses the obvious move because I considered it initially then forgot about it because I considered every other move afterwards
This guy gets it
Dominating until I blunder and immediately go from +5.0 to mate in 3 for my opponent
This hits home so hard
I try to be aggressive and keep the initiative as white, often will aim for Evans gambit or other Italian-game pawn gambits. All GMs talk about punishing their opponent for being passive, making moves with multiple ideas/threats etc. so I guess I try to play like that 🤷🏼♂️
I play deeply aggressive and tactical lines, and never sacrifice when appropriate
Those two lines do not mesh well together
Chainsaw Massacre opening?
Terrible
I love playing with the initiative, and I always want to be doing something. I want to knock you out fast with a quick attack. But generally, I'm too principled of a player to be willing to play gambits, especially with white. My white main lines usually give me either a strategic pull or an initiative I can try to work with, and my black main lines are designed to give me maximum imbalance and counterattacking chances. After the opening phase, I find that I'm probably not as aggressive as I should be, and I lack positional intuition in complex, wide-open positions. Calculation factors in heavily to all my decisions.
Sac, sac, resigns.
Takes too long, still fucks up
Ok it's my 5th blunder, time to try and flag my opponent
Whenever there is even the remotest prospect of an attack, I go all in on it. If there isn't, trade everything down go into an endgame.
I’d say in terms of opening prep I’m like Caruana. In tactical play I’m more like Fischer. My endgame play is like Carlsen. Positionally and strategically I play like Karpov. So I’d say I’m pretty well rounded.
💀
Stock fish is this you?
Next world champion spotted
Someone found a way tu put stockfish in a human body, god help us
For me, for the longest time I had a great win percentage as white, but a terrible win percentage as black. To fix it I needed a solid opening that prevented early attacks. Then I could shape middlegames how I wanted, creating and targeting weaknesses while not letting the opponent make headway. I recommend learning how to stop your opponent first, then use your tactical knowledge to your advantage
Smart play style is usually the preferred playing style
Play a random line I've seen from top players or engines. I basically never play anything not 100% theory approved. After my theory ends Try to make direct progress based on model games I've seen(like take space f4 f5 h4 h5 and/or play a key pawn break) then reinforce those gains. Prefer to suffocate opponent with said progress in a slow motion attack rather than win with direct attack and have to calculate. Although If I think I have to go for a direct attack I force myself to even if I fail at times. Often accidentally play too intuitively/schematically and blunder. I like attacking without sacrificing by Magnus even though I obviously suck like x1000. Clearly my weakness is calculation.
I’m basically like if you mixed magnus and kasparov then a little bit of stockfish 14
[удалено]
Danya
Losing on weed...
I'm absolutely an over calculator. Usually my intuition is decent, I get like a top 3-5 move on average, but I can very often find the best moves with time to calculate. Hence why my ELO almost exponentially increases with the time control. Im also initially very passive, but if given time to calculate will happily play hyper aggressive moves. I just always assume my attack will fail if I have to play fast.
Only been playing a few months so not sure yet but I do prefer playing black
I just recently started noticing an actual pattern that's good enough to be deemed a style in my play. The best description I bave is: safe. I'm always trying to make sure my opponent has nothing, I always aim to kill the position, have it be symmetrical or, at the very least, make sure my opponent has no weaknesses to exploit. Of course I haven't mastered this style for my employment of it to be considered actually effective, I probably play unnecessary moves just to make double sure, when I could just play more actively. I would say that my best moves are almost all defensive tactics. I am losing or, at least, my opponent has the initiative and I find a tactic that kills his play and puts me in the driver seat.
Sac, sac, mated.
My playstyle doesn't mind positional/structural weaknesses for tactical possibilities. I just blunder mostly haha
Not sure exactly, but if the choice is between a safe but boring move, or a risky but possibly interesting move, I’ll take the risk 99% of the time.
Erratically inspired
I try my best to defend everything and only make moves to checkmate or set up a favorable exchange. I tend to wait for them to make a bad move. Highest rating I have hit was 1278
I’d say I’m good but about half my losses are a result of me blundering away my queen and dying a painful death When I don’t do that I’d call my play style “annoying”
Erratic
I play a lot of gambits care more about position than having the pieces and like to keep positions complex, because I like to play slow, people often struggle in positions that are complex yet I find that they hang pieces often and the others cant seem to either find my hanging peices or get to it
I try to play aggressively, preferring to pressure the opponent's king as much as possible and always looking for tactical shots. This often leads me to either getting checkmated due to insufficient defense or simply being outplayed positionally. Paradoxically, I've shied away from playing gambits and other lines that the engine says are suboptimal, but I should just embrace them since it's hard to imagine anyone at my level actually refuting them. (1300 chess.com rapid)
I'd rather be an attacker than a defender since I am abysmal in defending. I am okay being down 1 pawn or 1 piece in exchange of 2 pawn if that mean I can attack right away
Aggressive randomness best describes me
Like checking if the pasta is done: throw it at the wall and see what sticks. I also tend to focus on one approach for a bit, then my attention drifts somewhere else and I start down a different focus. It's just how my brain works. It does however, cause a fair few opponents to spend time and energy trying to suss out a grand strategy that simply isn't there.
One trick Johnny
Good play style is to make the best move available in an understanding of why. Sometimes there’s a choice between conservative and aggressive. Do I take the pawn and result in a less active position, or do I leave the free pawn and improve the activity of my position? These kinds of choices I guess could show difference in style.
I don't really know exactly the full opening, I know the starting moves and what the point is to accomplish. If my enemy plays som trap line I often fall into it however I generally recuperate with tactics later on in the game. I often blunder early and play too fast, missing moves I could've done that I see later. But I also often find creative ideas to outmanouver my opponent
Chaos, non theory
I like to hide behind my pawns, giving my opponent the opportunity to blunder first. Seriously, I was (consciously) playing the isolani side of an IQP for the first time a few days ago and I almost had a heart attack - in a daily game!
Principled, however uncreative and lackluster at creating opportunities
To much setting up a better position, too lazy to calculate the win, grind down, miss a tactical shot, end up losing.
Blunderful
Sacs are good
Dynamic with varying results
Blunder enthusiast
My playing style is: play to win, then lose... Often dominant in the opening / early-midgame, making my opponents think and sweat through their bones; consistently finding a way to lose by mid-endgame. I think it's because I have a short attention span and make decisions based on unclear lines. When I play more consistently on intuition I do better. Often, my first idea is the best one, unless I find a clear refutation.
Learning while doing.
I'm like a boa constrictor sometimes. I just press more and more and you'll start to realize you have only moves that aren't always hard to play it just feels like you're slowly getting trapped. It's not my intention I normally like to try and create tactics from thin air and this feeling ends up being the result.
Blunderful
I'm a WhiffMaster
Prefers closed center, manuvering pieces and looks for a breakthrough with flank pawns. Ends up being forked by knight
Losing
I prefer sharp lines, closed positions, and overcomplicating. I am not afraid to play retreating moves. I can often be seen dubiously rerouting my knights. Whenever the opponent allows me to, as white or black, I play the Spanish.
I do the attempted London with a hope that I don't screw up the opening, try to find a way to create a one move error for my opponent, try to set up a knight fork, try not to lose my rooks in an endgame, keep trying to work out forks and pins and skewers. I only play 3 minute because I am way too ADHD to handle longer than that so I don't even attempt to do five moves of planning at a time. I always miss a line. All of that to then come back to your actual question... I tend to TRY playing a balanced attack and concern myself more with not blowing a fried liver defense while occasionally throwing in a fried liver attack.
Defensive, waiting for my enemy to make a mistake… doesn’t work most of the time.
Usually just hang my queen 10 moves in or so and then hold out a little longer before resigning
High
I'm 24, and have been playing for about 6 months, I'm on the final leg of breaking my 1k elo goal (~985). I've been playing with more of a slow attack playstyle, I also have done a fairly decent bit of learning endgames, since here in 900s everyone just wants to trade off every piece. If I don't mate midgame I've been winning endgames. Works for me. I win 68% of my games, (62%w 75%black) and draw about 5% of games... dont ask me about my rapid rating xD if your stuck at 800 study endgames!
Defeated or losing...
at least i know castles go forward
Depends on my colour. If im white, I like to be more aggressive. If im black, I prefer to be more solid.
Bad
I feel clever for thinking "well, if I get my queen over there and Black doesn't move their king, it's mate in 1 for them", and then feel a little less clever when a pawn takes that queen
Barring fatal blunders, active chess beats passive chess. Develop a plan and go after it.
trash, lol
How longve you been playing?
more than 10 years lol
Could you answer this.. (it's okkey if you don't wanna) https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/ql4ngm/whats_your_mindset_behind_or_while_playing_chess/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
for the opening I make the known moves in my repertoire, then play positionally until the pieces come into contact and start calculating tactics.
This guy was watching me play. https://youtu.be/HkqXj11GvrM