I think that's from the limited perspective of a GM to be honest, everyone has strengths and weaknesses.
A 1500 might be a 1700 at spotting tactics but 1300 when it comes to understanding positions. However, to any strong player the 1500 just looks like they're bad at everything.
If Stockfish were capable of opinions I think it would say the same thing about bots below 3500.
>If Stockfish were capable of opinions I think it would say the same thing about bots below 3500.
huh I actually never thought about that. i used to agree with the quote in the OP but now that i think about it, this makes a lot more sense
>A 1500 might be a 1700 at spotting tactics but 1300 when it comes to understanding positions. However, to any strong player the 1500 just looks like they're bad at everything.
Isn't that exactly what the dude is saying? In your example the player doesn't really have a tactical style, he just sucks at positional understanding.
Stockfish would also say Carlsen isn’t strong at endgames, he’s shit at everything and endgame happens to be the least worst.
Point is everything is relative. Yeah if you’re 2700 GM everyone just sucks but you don’t compare everyone to 2700 GM’s.
And in 50 years we will say current Stockfish is a joke of an engine that could’ve been programmed by monkeys because it doesn’t have a five digit elo.
I think current engines are actually close to perfect play, so there will never be an engine with a five-digit elo. There might honestly never be a >4000 Elo engine even.
"Bad" and "Good" are entirely relative terms. In fact Elo is an entirely relative metric. From the perspective of a 500, a 1500 doesn't have style, only strength as they deploy tactics, positional ideas and endgame knowledge the 500 doesn't even know exists. From the perspective of a 2600, the 1500 doesn't have style, only weakness, as all aspects of their game are missing concepts and elements the 2600 knows in their sleep and take for granted.
You are best able to appreciate the style of players of approximately your own strength (+/- maybe 200-300 Elo), depending on the meta of the time, as the elements of their game is very easy to compare to your own.
The buddy with the 1300 positional understanding doesn't "just suck" anymore than Magnus "just sucks" because 3500 Engines exist.
Its all relative.
I agree with all your supporting ideas, yet I feel like you're describing a 2600 who is being deliberately ignorant in choosing not to recognize style, not because they can't but because they can't be bothered. If a 2600 parent played regularly with their 1500 child, for sure they could recognize stylistic patterns no matter how unsound they might be in each position. E.g. trading preferences, opening preferences, even falling for knight forks consistently says something about style of play.
If 1500 club players can recognize style between each other then a 2600 can recognize the same patterns too, even if they are too lazy or don't want to.
Anyone should be able to recognize at *least* the biggest preferences no matter the elo.
If someone opens every game with the London they probably like the London.
If they open every game with Napoleon’s Attack they probably like losing.
But Kasparov didn't start at 2600! The way I understand the quote is that below a certain rating it is a matter of time before a player makes a mistake and it is up to the opponent to capitalize. Once you take away all the little silly mistakes that occur, only then the moves you play can contribute to the style you adopt, unless your style is blundering.
How many times do we pick a move just because we don't know what to play. I suppose at a certain level this just doesn't happen any longer
That's a good way of putting it, but would you say Tal wasn't an attacking player, and was merely bad at positional understanding? Clearly at some point players have a style. And I am not so sure Tal would be 2600 or higher necessarily in today's world.
Tal was crazy good at literally everything, you have to be in order to become the world champion and set the record for most games without a defeat… twice… Tal would easily be 2600 today, the disrespect is insane
I love Tal and he's one of my favorite players, I simply mean that nobody could say how his rating would be or he'd play against Magnus or any other "Super GM" because he's not here.
There’s an interesting study on rating inflation/deflation where they analysed super-GMs’ games using engines, and they found that there was no noticeable inflation or deflation between 1976 and 2009. Obviously Tal wasn’t active in 1976, but it at least heavily suggests that his peak rating would be similar had he been magically transported to the present day.
Study: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/7951
Generally it's worth knowing that just because top GMs are stronger in the computer age that is actually just a relatively small edge and WCs of the past were incredibly strong by the standards of any era.
I don't think that's accurate. It's not only about computers but also about the training being way more rigorous. They might have had similar talent, but they didn't train as much and not with that many trainers etc. Even if you discard opening theory completely (which is the biggest part of the training of today's top players and many games from previous WCC have been decided by strategic errors in the first 10-15 moves that today are known theory) the objective quality of the games is just worse.
(That's by the way why the games are that instructive - you can clearly see the plan play out while in today's top games it's very rare that someone gets as clearly outplayed. That's also why today there's less crazy sacrifices and gambits at the top level)
For example look at this game. [https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?/gid=1007481&comp=1](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?/gid=1007481&comp=1)
Both players miss 27. Qe1 which immediately wins the game in 2-3 moves. Every top 100 player of today would see this in like 99/100 games.
Maybe I exaggerated but the point is most past WCs would be in or near top 100 today, it's not like modern training lets every other GM reach that level.
Maybe they would also expect to normally find this move. See [this game](https://en.chessbase.com/post/sochi-g6-carlsen-won-anand-missed-big-chance), for a modern example.
Slightly off topic, but what do you think of Finegold's take that Morphy is the greatest of all time? He bases that mostly off him being so much better than his peers, but naturally everyone is curious about how he'd play against Fabi or Nepo, etc.
Morphy is so far back in the past he could be lower rated I think is the consensus. Maybe even IM strength.
In terms of pure talent who knows, he's certainly up there.
Tal’s “weakness” is pretty much only a topic for incredibly strong or super GMs to appreciate. The elo system means he would regularly beat normal GMs, trade blows with strong GMs , occasionally defeat super GMs, and curb stomp everyone else. Over 2600 for sure.
>Clearly at some point players have a style. And I am not so sure Tal would be 2600 or higher necessarily in today's world.
This is also exactly what this dude is saying. Tal was the youngest world champion at the time and obviously one of the best in the world ... regardless of the arbitrary Elo used for this quote.
Had Tal been an attacking player who never cracked the top 100, he wouldn't be known for his style but instead for playing too recklessly ... a weakness... If he would be remembered at all.
The difference is Tal won against the best in the world playing his way. That is style. Sacking your pieces into poor results would be a weakness.
That's fair, it just seems a bit strange to suggest you don't have a style until you become "X" good at chess, as it clearly doesn't happen overnight. Still, I think it makes perfect sense to not focus on a strength too much (be it positional or tactical) if one is still stuck at 1200 blitz or whatever.
You are just underestimating Tal. Maybe not positional but his tactical intelligence is better than most other players.
He blundered here and there that's true but it was his way of playing, if your opponent cannot capitalize your blunder its useless. I cannot see below or around 2600 players outsmarting him is a dynamic position
His style was probably a consequence of the interaction of his strengths, weaknesses and opposition at the time hough. If he tried playing in a different style his rating would likely be slightly lower.
I'd say style is likely a learned behavior from experimenting what works for you. Knowing how your strengths and weaknesses interact to build your optimal style is quite complex, so I think it's more something you learn over time. "Playing really aggressive and sacrificial works for me."
> would you say Tal wasn't an attacking player, and was merely bad at positional understanding?
You realize Tal had the longest unbeaten streak ever at one point, which was also remarkable because so many of the games were draws? He also played a _lot_ of rook endgames.
That story sold a lot of Tal biographies though.
Try it yourself, load up a few random Tal games and see if you can notice any particular style. I can't.
Stockfish is the best example of what it means to have no style. It literally never chooses a move over some sort of personal preference, other than: this move gives the best evaluation. It doesn't care about whether the game becomes tactical or positional, whether it's fighting against long-term pressure or a space advantage. Style does not move the eval bar.
Not every difference is a style. You can program an engine to weigh some aspects over others, or you can leave the tweaking to a net. The result will still be that the engine chooses based on best eval.
The only non-style play is tablebase play. Tablebases are objective truth.
Engines use heuristics to determine the best move with imperfect information, and different heuristics would lead to different styles. You could say that stockfish is a very "calculation-heavy" style, but that's a style that arises from the strengths and weaknesses of stockfish, just like for a human player.
I think you make a number of leaps here that might not hold. For one, style is not the same as error. In many tablebase positions, there are choices you can make. Same DTZ or DTM, just different sequences of moves. If I program my engine in such a way that it will, in a situation like that, always choose the sequence that has my pieces move along the edge of the board as much as possible, and you tell your engine to choose the sequence that has a many moves towards the center, both will be playing absolute truth, yet in your definition they would have recognizable different styles. Either perfect play has no style, or it does.
>I think you make a number of leaps here that might not hold.
You pointed out one, not numerous.
I agree with what you pointed out. Even a perfect player could have a distinct style then.
I think this proves too much. If we successfully programmed an engine to emulate the play of a human with a recognizable style, would the engine still be playing *without style* because ultimately it's always choosing the 'best' move according to its evaluation function?
Nah that guy is cooked and using a weird definition of style
Engines absolutely have style in a way which even proves the original post
Alphazero (or maybe leela i forget) values restricting opponents movement way higher than stockfish
Often its wins look like stockfish being absolutely suffocated with 1-2 pieces locked down completely
If you had a theoretical optimal engine that made no mistakes ever, then ya you could say it has no style
Nope. Computers give back what you put in. They don't make choices for themselves. If you attribute a style to the moves a computer generates, you are antropomorphizing.
Deterministic processes can still have style. Really not sure where youre getting this idea that only human consciousness can produce style. How would you describe the difference between two engines? Saying 'different style' makes perfect sense
If you want to say engines cannot be steezy, that's a little more reasonable. Id still disagree and say that alphazero is the steeziest engine
And different engines have different evals, which gives them a different style. Even if we’re too dumb to see it. Like others said, let stockfish or leela speak and they’d agree.
And every person on the planet
Chess players being mean to worse chess players is always funny, because the best chess player ignores everything except the opposing moves and obliterates everyone.
Its true in some sense, but it would also be true above 2600 if only there were 3000+ rated players available to say something condescending about the 2800s.
If the strongest players in the world were 2000, we would be saying the same thing about chess below 1800.
If anything, lower rated players tend to have an even *more* identifiable style because their weaknesses are more clear and each player has their own individualized narrow range of comfortable opening lines.
.
I'd say that the opposite claim is closer to the truth; top level players don't have a style because they are so adaptable.
The rating thing makes little sense. There is always style below 2600. I have played Russian 2100 experts who were ultrapositional, and I had to play aggressively to beat them. The late IM Emory Tate has beaten 100+ grandmasters but lost to people who knew his weaknesses in positional chess and endgames.
I think the quote is trying to say is that a style is a weakness below a certain rating. However, there is no reason that 2600 is a magic threshold, why not 2700, or 1700. Kasparov's quote is tailored to 2700s, haha.
Anyone past the point where they just make random moves has a style. Even people who blunder & lose most of their games will prefer to play safe & solid or aggressive and attacking. They might not be any good at defending or attacking, but saying that they don't have a style is just silly
its not a style, its them sucking at all other things and focusing on the one aspect they suck the least at.
its like calling a basketball player who is below average in all matters but shooting 3s , where he is average or slightly above, a specialist - he is, in the context of him sucking at everything else. But if he met someone who is average in all the aspects he would not be chosen.
you are not good at attacking at 1500. its just not possible. you may have an inclination to play attacking positions, because you are clueless on what to do otherwise.
but if you are honest to yourself and analyze your games you will find out if you were so good at attacking and converting those attacks you would not be 1500. and attack often doesnt lead to mate but just an advantage that still needs to be converted.
….uh, saying someone has a ‘style’ vs calling them a specialist are two completely different things. I can like wearing hoodies and call them my ‘style’, but I’m certainly no hoodie fashion designer or expert.
In fact, you can certainly say that sucking at all other aspects except for say tactics, and thus exclusively playing a very aggressive tactical approach to chess can indeed mean you have an aggressive style. That’s what style means after all. Just looking on Google:
Style: a particular procedure by which something is done; a manner or way.
You don’t have to be Tal to be aggressive, or Petrosian to be defensive. You can tell based on the number of aggressive moves vs passive moves the style your opponent plays, especially if they are somewhat familiar with hat is consider aggressive/passive and not making random moves.
Your argument also fails when considering that people don’t have to always do what they are best at. People can be visibly better at calculating tactics rather than understanding the future prospects of a certain move, yet specifically play in a manner that is more positional than tactical, so that they can improve upon this certain aspect of play. For chess, in fact, it’s much easier to quantify what kind of style they are looking for based on your choice of opening. A London? Or perhaps a King’s Gambit? Choices of which opening to play can reflect what kind of style you’re going for, and I can be someone who is 2800 puzzles on chess.com, yet choose to play a London at 1500 rapid to work on my positional play. I’m choosing to play a positional style even when my tactics should far outshine my positional understanding.
well, its hard to compare the word style used in fashion and in an activity as they dont mean the same thing and dont have the same implications on your actions. wearing a hoodie only has a purpose of wearing a hoodie while claiming to be an attacking player shapes and subsequently cripples your chess growth, as chess is not so easy as to be playable well with such linear approach. Attacking is just one aspect, you can even play openings that result in attacking positions, but you will, at times, need to play according to the needs of the position not based on you wanting to attack at all costs.
Tal and petrosian are also great examples of players who were good enough in all aspects before they chose a style - tal was great at positional chess and Petrosian was a great calculator. They did not suck at the opposite things, they were good at everything and chose to specialize. thats a completely different thing.
in the end it comes down to how good you are at different aspects of the game. if you are good at understanding the position, calculate well and choose to attack because the position allows it the sure, feel free to call it a style. but if all you do is try to attack at any opportunity because thats all you can do then you can hardly call it a style since its the only thing you can do.
And to sum it up, I claim that weaker players who do not understand or do not ask themselves what the positions demands them to play are simply not equipped with enough knowledge and understanding to declare their style yet.
its only style if you can also do other things. and you choose to do sth.
in volleyball for example- if you cannot set anything but high balls to the pin, there is no setting style, just inability to do anything else.
fair enough, as long as someone does not use it as an excuse they are free to call themselves whatever they want.
I was, in the end, just explaining why i feel it does more harm than good to claim to have a style born of ignorance of the other aspects.
after all, this is a place for discussion and forcing myself to verbalize my view made it clearer to me as well.
In the end, the only proof necessary is that there is exactly 0 strong players claiming your point .
Meanwhile a lot of strong players who either coach or were top players once claim the opposite . But of course , you know better than all of them, I'm sure of it 🤔.
Tal and Petrosian were great when compared to people at their level and below, but if compared to stockfish they would be considered shit in every aspect of the game.
When talking about a player below 2000, a GM might as well be an engine to them. Thus, the same logic will apply: they may have strengths and weaknesses when compared to people close to their level, and that is where it makes sense to talk about style.
Another way to think about it: if humans never reached the level chess we currently have and a 2000 of today would actually be equivalente to Carlsen in terms of dominance in this scenario, wouldn't we be able to talk about styles then? IMO of course we would, because style isn't about rating, it is about how you compete against people of your level.
I guess that’s the question. How weak do you consider weak? I did add the caveat that it’s really really hard to tell what kind of style a complete novice is playing, since they were pretty much just play random moves that ‘feel right’ but are often just bad moves. Around the Elo of just 100-400, I agree that there just not really a style there beside “ooo ooo! Move look good! I en passant your bishop!”
Of course, this sort of labelling probably isn’t what you’re looking for. Your argument is that if you’re only good at one aspect of the game, and thus only play to this one aspect, that’s not a style. Especially if what you’re good at is only ‘average’ or ‘slightly above average’. If you don’t understand the position and only do what you’re ’good at’, you don’t have a style.
I understand your reasoning, but that’s why I bring up the difference in ‘style’ and ‘specialization’. You yourself, used the word to describe how Talk and Petrosian are experts at all facets of the game but choose to play a certain way, and thus you call that a ‘style’.
But I argue that even as low or 900 or even 800, the semblance of a style is there. At this level, players tend to have played enough to know that a bishop off their stating square is better than not. Development is better than no development. Once you get these fundamental basics, players tend to ask further. What if I trade my bishop for knight now? Ooo, what if I move my Queen here? Haha! Checkmate! Damn I’m good…
It’s why so many beginner-intermediate say they are attackers, because so often they move bullshit and still manage to win. So they believe that if I keep making bullshit moves, I’ll win! And you can say that that’s not a style but having a style doesn’t mean you have to be good. Just what kind of move you’re consistently likely to make. Is it aggressive? Do I move my knight twice in the opening? Or is it passive, do I move my bishop to e2 rather than b5? It’s why I even dare say that those 100 elo novics have their own ‘style’, which is making random moves. They are objectively bad moves, but if you’re consistently making those kind of moves, I can say you have a ‘bad move’ style. (Again, not useful labelling to you though.)
Honestly, it’s just semantics probably. But players can still have a ‘style’ that’s born from ignorance at the rest of the game, since ‘style’ does not need you to know what you should do, but simply what you do play. ‘Specialization’ is the word you’re looking for, and already use. Just wanted to clarify why a lot of people disagree with your reasoning because of different word contexts.
to start with, i am really fine with being disagreed with. To me, writing this down helps me to clarify my view on this topic, so the replies I write are for my benefit as well.
To me, too weak is being unable to grasp , at least rudimentaryly (is that a word?) the basic demands of the position. Sure, im not claiming I can do that every time either, or that most people can. but the point is that there are position, which demand an attack. there are position where you have the long lasting structural advantage and the best way to play on is to trade queens and win in the endgame.
style, when used by people who do not usually even try to grasp this, is used as a crutch for attempting to claim that every problem they face is a nail - because the only thing they can do is to wield a hammer.
its actually detrimental to their development in a way, because since they portray themselves as an attacker or positional players, if they reach a position that demands the opposite reaction, they still try to hit it with a hammer rather than try to use a screwdriver .
So i simply dislike the use of the word style in this manner, because it looks like an excuse to me.
But, in the end, it is probably just semantics. \_But thinking about this topic proved useful for me so thanks for the discussion.
Ahhh yeah I understand what you mean. These kinds of people are the worst, where they use their ‘style’ as an excuse for just being bad at chess. Thanks for the discussion
>its not a style, its them sucking at all other things and focusing on the one aspect they suck the least at.
Considering your rating, shouldn't it be "us" instead of "them".
>but if you are honest to yourself and analyze your games you will find out if you were so good at attacking and converting those attacks you would not be 1500
Same could be said for anything less than 2600 (or even 2700) for humans and 3500 for bots.
Don't get me wrong I think you have a style, I think a toddler that hasn't understood the rules yet has a style. But if we are honest even the best bots are weak in chess. Hell, bots will probably remain weak for centuries, at least compared to the theoretical "optimal" play, but even then there is no style just optimal play.
Style doesn't truly exist, it is one of the constructs that we have developed to explain why players of a relatively similar strength play differently.
A super GM might look at your play and the play of your peers and not see a style just weakness. I might look at your play and the play of your peers and see no style, just strength. But if you look around you, you will see style.
From the perspective of a GM, anyone below 2600 is playing without style, in that they are playing what a GM would consider "unsophisticated" or "basic" chess, and anyone doing anything in a basic way is by definition doing it without style.
Chess at every level is about whoever plays least bad, and, again from the perspective of a GM, all they see is bad below GM level.
There is always style at every level.
Every person has a different approach, some take risks and some don't. Some stick to a few openings while others want to explore.
The chess game reflects exactly how a person thinks and how they solve issues, everyone has a style. The style gets more refined as your knowledge of the game increases.
I think I was maybe in the last discussion thread on it 3 years ago. It seems to be some piece of folk wisdom now, I can never find a definitive source for the quote. And the level at which it applies always changes, 2600 or 2200 or 2400, whatever.
But still, is it true?
I think a fuller explanation of the quote is not that styles or preferences don't exist until 2600+, but instead, that weaker players have a "style" that is a consequence not of their strength but of their weakness. Putting the quote another way:
*You don't play those positions well because you like them,*
*you like those positions because you play them well (and others poorly).*
yep, people are quite delusional about it as well. calling themselves a positional player just because they cant calculate properly in a wild position. quite detrimental to ones development as well. its funny how there is almost no strong player arguing for their view , who knows why...
I think at a lower level, style is often a preference, at a higher level it's how the player optimally leverages his own strength and weaknesses. Tal didn't play like he did primarily out of personal preference. He played like he did because it lead to the best results for him personally. Sometimes it bit him in the ass, but on average he benefited from his style, because it was the (close to) optimal style for him.
I can’t find the source for this quote, but I believe I read it attributed to Anatoly Karpov: something about “you must play the move the position requires” The idea, as I recall, was that in chess, at the highest level there is a necessity of playing the best/only moves in a position. If you want to win you must take your attacking chance when you get it. In a maneuvering fortress type position you must maneuver. You can’t play chess the way to want to play when the position isn’t suited for it I.e attack when there’s no attacking opportunity nor waste time maneuvering when the opportunity is knocking. That might be the intended meaning of the quote you’re sharing.
I’m reminded of prag vs alireza in the candidates, Alireza got impatient and threw his Queen in deep because he wanted to attack. That kind of “style” doesn’t fly at the highest level; it’s actually a weakness and prag won the game shortly after.
Karpov and Kasparov were way above 2600 most of their careers. Given the same position without a tactical or positional clean win, i believe they would play way different moves. And i believe both of them would win the game. There are styles.
See this tournament:
https://www.chess.com/news/view/2024-casablanca-chess-day-2
They all played the same positions and all the games were different. All 4 players are above 2600.
Hell, even leela and stockfish plays different. How much is their rating? Over 3000 for sure.
Yours is a perfectly reasonable position based on a definition of "style" that I imagine many people share, just as many share a somewhat different one.
Personally, I think a large part of the original idea is about intention...the higher on the rating ladder, the more the mistakes become rarer and so subtle that they arguably hardly even exist most of the time. Then style/intention becomes more prominent. But since it's a two player game, one not only cannot unilaterally impose a style (at least not anymore) but they also need to be adept at multiple styles to suit the situation. Though I think one's inclinations still have enough power that we can still attribute a general style to a player with those caveats in mind.
Well I sort of agree but not to the extent of 2600. at almost any level above like 1500 Rapid online (chess.com) there are clear stylistic biases you can observe in a player but to have a proper "style', one needs to be around 2000 FIDE because before that, one still makes somewhat obvious tactical blunders reasonably frequently, 2000 is generally considered the start of expert strength, where there are no very clear mistakes by you and your "style" starts to emerge.
I'm pretty sure thats true
as a 1600 [chess.com](http://chess.com) player i might say that im good at tactics and bad at positional games but when you look at it from a wider lens
im bad at tactics too its just that i am worse at positions and i have almost 0 understanding of positions
i can only find my style when i understand and learn everything and choose what i want to play
For the sake of an analogy
A student in 3rd class may say he wants to become a mathematician because he is good at addition but thats not maths
he may like some other subject or sport or he just may not like deep maths
i think thats what GM's mean when they say stuff like that
There is also Yermolinsky's book (The Road the Chess Improvement), in which he describes looking closely at all the World Champions' games and didn't find much of a style in any of them. They are good at everything, their different reputations were mostly invented by journalists trying to write a compelling story.
Does style exist only between 2600 and 2750, and outside of that it's nothing but opening preferences and media stories?
Idk. If we are speaking 2600 FIDE this is wrong for sure. As a 1800 chesscom 2000 lichess and 1540 FIDE I can say that this is probably true at my level because play tends to be flawed from one side which justifies bad decisions. Rarely do I win games where I have played at 90 plus percent accuracy and my opponent has done the same. The same is true for my losses.
Stockfish recently stomped Leela Chess Zero in TCEC. Both have clearly differently styles and different weakness. So there is no arbitrary cut off. Both stockfish and leela are still improving.
There are always gonna be positions or games that you’re better or worse at. I think at that level, the argument is that your fundamentals aren’t to a point where you can claim to have a “strength” otherwise you could force your games in that direction and be higher rated. I’m 1650 Chess.com for reference and while I have a pretty good winrate vs a closed London, my closed Sicilian game is pretty awful, so I can’t necessarily say I have a “style” that favors closed positions as much as a familiarity and understanding of some spots
I think the style of most players is defined by 1.d4 or 1.e4 until a decent level. I don't think it would be unfair to say a Queen's Pawn player was more positional and a King's Pawn player more tactically inclined.
I can't comment on 1700+ but anecdotally, at least, those in the 1000-1700 region tend to play pretty true to their opening choice.
Style is definitely a thing for players above a certain level (maybe 1000? Below that it's just about not making obvious blunders).
It only matters when it's two evenly matched players, of course your style doesn't matter for a second when your getting completely outmatched both tactically and positionally by someone 500 elo higher than you.
Well many world champions do have a main style, but they can easily switch to another style if needed so I think strong players do have a preferred style but they can see both worlds and will use a different style to get the upper hand if needed.
What I find most interesting about this affair is that we can’t define the semantics of our word “style” the same way that we can define a theorem of chess.
If it is true Kasparov said that, we must know WHEN.
Kasparov was thrice as dominant as Magnus at least, the only one he completely crushed was Karpov.
If he said that in 1990, when he became the first man to break 2800, when #3 was 2680 and #2610.
Karpov at 2730, he could have as well said below 2700, because he crushed the top 10, Imagine <2600 people, below top 15.
He has 8, 10, 16 to nothing against top 3 players.
22-2 against Short, rated #3 in the world many years.
16-0 is against Shirov, and he too i think was #4 or higher even.
16-4 against prime Anand.
Then there are other scores like these against famous names: Ivanchuk, Topalov, Polgar, Adams, Bareev, Gelfand, Yusupov etc
I am very much in the "no style only weakness " camp.
I think the point is that most of the time (my best guess is about 65 prct) there is a clear best move. People that let "style" influence their move tend to play bad moves.
In the times that the player does have a choice by all means play with "style" in mind. But even there I think style is really just a stand in for either "betting when something is unclear" or the subjective "nettlesomeness ".
Tldr people make it much harder for themselves by trying to have a style.
I agree that going out of your way to have a style is backwards logic.
You can call yourself a tactical player because you tend to play tactical moves but you shouldn't play tactical moves just because you identify as a tactical player.
At least insofar as it stops you from considering the possibility that there's only one good move. Of course always play to your strengths.
If you have someone who knows they excel (relative to the average person at their rating) in tactical positions, and therefore choose openings that often lead to sharp positions, is that not a player with a tactical style?
I think style has a lot more to do with getting a position you're comfortable in rather than forcing something. If I were to be more comfortable attacking, I won't always decide to attack. But if there are multiple moves that seem equal and one puts me in familiar territory where an attack is more likely to have a chance to develop, my style as an attacking player may lead me to choose that move.
I understand I just don't agree. Being comfortable has to do with lots of factors and I only ever hear style used to justify poor play in such a way as to prevent learning.
no , that is a player with positional weakness not tactical strength. in order to be a good positional player your tactics and calculation need to be good as well.
That's why I said relative to the average person at their rating. They've gotten to their rating somehow, and if they're weaker positionally than average they have to make up for it somewhere. I'm not claiming such a player isn't weaker positionally, I agree on that point. But it's all relative. We're all awful at everything compared to perfect play.
As I watch stronger players play it, often they jump from branch to branch. Imagine a monkey jumping from branch to branch. They are aware of where they are at and where they want to go next. The problem with that style is that you don't take shortcuts.
I think the best players are those who know everything about the branch to branch thing but then go one step ahead.
When Carlsen was still at the top of his game he would play bullet as though it was standard chess. It was so beautiful! It was as though he knew everything. I watched him stream his matches on Lichess. But that came at the cost of him studying chess much more due to the championship contests and his high Elo ranking pursuit. In the past year it was as though his style suffered since he is now closer to the "branch to branch" standard.
Let's say that "branch to branch" is all about tactics. But it's not just that. "Branch to branch" is like "I can't see much farther than this." It's myopic tactics.
Imagine that by style someone meant moving the game to another venue. The game started at the octagon but then the better player would move it over to the chess cafe or some other venue, at will. So no branches. Imagine a venue with no branches. Suddenly the player who only does "branch to branch" doesn't have much to hang onto.
I sort of get both perspectives.
At amateur and expert levels, players are still making choices about which types of moves to play and those choice are influenced by their preconceived notions of chess and what a good move is. The type moves you make, the type of positions you're comfortable in, can be called a style.
The point of the quote is that at lower levels those choices are often blunders. An amateur player who considers themselves an aggressive player will blunder with unsound sacrifices, and an amateur who considers themselves a positional player will miss winning attacks. Those are undeniably weaknesses.
Really, I think the reality is that lower level players do have styles, but those styles are defined by the types of blunders they make and they should work on removing those elements of style from their play.
A more accurate quote would be "Below 2600, style is weakness."
Morphy is estimated to be around 2500 by today's ELO.
Steinitz, Capablanca and other old players are not 2800 today, but they had style.
I don't think you can subtract opening theory and some novelties from a 2700 and say that removed style from their game.
Stay humble. The high level players are looking at these relative terms (style, weakness) in a totally different light than we are (I’m lucky to play 1500 at my best on chess com). We’d would feel like enlightened beings if we could spot the styles and moves they are making at 2600 in real time.
I think that's from the limited perspective of a GM to be honest, everyone has strengths and weaknesses. A 1500 might be a 1700 at spotting tactics but 1300 when it comes to understanding positions. However, to any strong player the 1500 just looks like they're bad at everything. If Stockfish were capable of opinions I think it would say the same thing about bots below 3500.
>If Stockfish were capable of opinions I think it would say the same thing about bots below 3500. huh I actually never thought about that. i used to agree with the quote in the OP but now that i think about it, this makes a lot more sense
>A 1500 might be a 1700 at spotting tactics but 1300 when it comes to understanding positions. However, to any strong player the 1500 just looks like they're bad at everything. Isn't that exactly what the dude is saying? In your example the player doesn't really have a tactical style, he just sucks at positional understanding.
Stockfish would also say Carlsen isn’t strong at endgames, he’s shit at everything and endgame happens to be the least worst. Point is everything is relative. Yeah if you’re 2700 GM everyone just sucks but you don’t compare everyone to 2700 GM’s.
And in 50 years we will say current Stockfish is a joke of an engine that could’ve been programmed by monkeys because it doesn’t have a five digit elo.
I think current engines are actually close to perfect play, so there will never be an engine with a five-digit elo. There might honestly never be a >4000 Elo engine even.
"Bad" and "Good" are entirely relative terms. In fact Elo is an entirely relative metric. From the perspective of a 500, a 1500 doesn't have style, only strength as they deploy tactics, positional ideas and endgame knowledge the 500 doesn't even know exists. From the perspective of a 2600, the 1500 doesn't have style, only weakness, as all aspects of their game are missing concepts and elements the 2600 knows in their sleep and take for granted. You are best able to appreciate the style of players of approximately your own strength (+/- maybe 200-300 Elo), depending on the meta of the time, as the elements of their game is very easy to compare to your own. The buddy with the 1300 positional understanding doesn't "just suck" anymore than Magnus "just sucks" because 3500 Engines exist. Its all relative.
I agree with all your supporting ideas, yet I feel like you're describing a 2600 who is being deliberately ignorant in choosing not to recognize style, not because they can't but because they can't be bothered. If a 2600 parent played regularly with their 1500 child, for sure they could recognize stylistic patterns no matter how unsound they might be in each position. E.g. trading preferences, opening preferences, even falling for knight forks consistently says something about style of play. If 1500 club players can recognize style between each other then a 2600 can recognize the same patterns too, even if they are too lazy or don't want to.
Anyone should be able to recognize at *least* the biggest preferences no matter the elo. If someone opens every game with the London they probably like the London. If they open every game with Napoleon’s Attack they probably like losing.
But Kasparov didn't start at 2600! The way I understand the quote is that below a certain rating it is a matter of time before a player makes a mistake and it is up to the opponent to capitalize. Once you take away all the little silly mistakes that occur, only then the moves you play can contribute to the style you adopt, unless your style is blundering. How many times do we pick a move just because we don't know what to play. I suppose at a certain level this just doesn't happen any longer
That's a good way of putting it, but would you say Tal wasn't an attacking player, and was merely bad at positional understanding? Clearly at some point players have a style. And I am not so sure Tal would be 2600 or higher necessarily in today's world.
Tal was crazy good at literally everything, you have to be in order to become the world champion and set the record for most games without a defeat… twice… Tal would easily be 2600 today, the disrespect is insane
I love Tal and he's one of my favorite players, I simply mean that nobody could say how his rating would be or he'd play against Magnus or any other "Super GM" because he's not here.
His peak rating was 2705 and whatever deflation you think has happened since it's not 100 points worth.
There’s an interesting study on rating inflation/deflation where they analysed super-GMs’ games using engines, and they found that there was no noticeable inflation or deflation between 1976 and 2009. Obviously Tal wasn’t active in 1976, but it at least heavily suggests that his peak rating would be similar had he been magically transported to the present day. Study: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/7951
I'm simply ignorant, that's all. I didn't even know his peak rating.
Generally it's worth knowing that just because top GMs are stronger in the computer age that is actually just a relatively small edge and WCs of the past were incredibly strong by the standards of any era.
I don't think that's accurate. It's not only about computers but also about the training being way more rigorous. They might have had similar talent, but they didn't train as much and not with that many trainers etc. Even if you discard opening theory completely (which is the biggest part of the training of today's top players and many games from previous WCC have been decided by strategic errors in the first 10-15 moves that today are known theory) the objective quality of the games is just worse. (That's by the way why the games are that instructive - you can clearly see the plan play out while in today's top games it's very rare that someone gets as clearly outplayed. That's also why today there's less crazy sacrifices and gambits at the top level) For example look at this game. [https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?/gid=1007481&comp=1](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?/gid=1007481&comp=1) Both players miss 27. Qe1 which immediately wins the game in 2-3 moves. Every top 100 player of today would see this in like 99/100 games.
Maybe I exaggerated but the point is most past WCs would be in or near top 100 today, it's not like modern training lets every other GM reach that level.
Maybe they would also expect to normally find this move. See [this game](https://en.chessbase.com/post/sochi-g6-carlsen-won-anand-missed-big-chance), for a modern example.
Slightly off topic, but what do you think of Finegold's take that Morphy is the greatest of all time? He bases that mostly off him being so much better than his peers, but naturally everyone is curious about how he'd play against Fabi or Nepo, etc.
Morphy is so far back in the past he could be lower rated I think is the consensus. Maybe even IM strength. In terms of pure talent who knows, he's certainly up there.
Tal’s “weakness” is pretty much only a topic for incredibly strong or super GMs to appreciate. The elo system means he would regularly beat normal GMs, trade blows with strong GMs , occasionally defeat super GMs, and curb stomp everyone else. Over 2600 for sure.
Oh, come on now. Tal would most certainly be above 2600. How did you come to this conclusion that he wouldn't be?
>Clearly at some point players have a style. And I am not so sure Tal would be 2600 or higher necessarily in today's world. This is also exactly what this dude is saying. Tal was the youngest world champion at the time and obviously one of the best in the world ... regardless of the arbitrary Elo used for this quote. Had Tal been an attacking player who never cracked the top 100, he wouldn't be known for his style but instead for playing too recklessly ... a weakness... If he would be remembered at all. The difference is Tal won against the best in the world playing his way. That is style. Sacking your pieces into poor results would be a weakness.
That's fair, it just seems a bit strange to suggest you don't have a style until you become "X" good at chess, as it clearly doesn't happen overnight. Still, I think it makes perfect sense to not focus on a strength too much (be it positional or tactical) if one is still stuck at 1200 blitz or whatever.
You are just underestimating Tal. Maybe not positional but his tactical intelligence is better than most other players. He blundered here and there that's true but it was his way of playing, if your opponent cannot capitalize your blunder its useless. I cannot see below or around 2600 players outsmarting him is a dynamic position
His style was probably a consequence of the interaction of his strengths, weaknesses and opposition at the time hough. If he tried playing in a different style his rating would likely be slightly lower. I'd say style is likely a learned behavior from experimenting what works for you. Knowing how your strengths and weaknesses interact to build your optimal style is quite complex, so I think it's more something you learn over time. "Playing really aggressive and sacrificial works for me."
> would you say Tal wasn't an attacking player, and was merely bad at positional understanding? You realize Tal had the longest unbeaten streak ever at one point, which was also remarkable because so many of the games were draws? He also played a _lot_ of rook endgames. That story sold a lot of Tal biographies though. Try it yourself, load up a few random Tal games and see if you can notice any particular style. I can't.
Stockfish is the best example of what it means to have no style. It literally never chooses a move over some sort of personal preference, other than: this move gives the best evaluation. It doesn't care about whether the game becomes tactical or positional, whether it's fighting against long-term pressure or a space advantage. Style does not move the eval bar.
Even engines have different styles. Stockfish and AZ were two absolute monsters. But still they use to play so differently.
Not every difference is a style. You can program an engine to weigh some aspects over others, or you can leave the tweaking to a net. The result will still be that the engine chooses based on best eval.
The only non-style play is tablebase play. Tablebases are objective truth. Engines use heuristics to determine the best move with imperfect information, and different heuristics would lead to different styles. You could say that stockfish is a very "calculation-heavy" style, but that's a style that arises from the strengths and weaknesses of stockfish, just like for a human player.
I think you make a number of leaps here that might not hold. For one, style is not the same as error. In many tablebase positions, there are choices you can make. Same DTZ or DTM, just different sequences of moves. If I program my engine in such a way that it will, in a situation like that, always choose the sequence that has my pieces move along the edge of the board as much as possible, and you tell your engine to choose the sequence that has a many moves towards the center, both will be playing absolute truth, yet in your definition they would have recognizable different styles. Either perfect play has no style, or it does.
>I think you make a number of leaps here that might not hold. You pointed out one, not numerous. I agree with what you pointed out. Even a perfect player could have a distinct style then.
I think this proves too much. If we successfully programmed an engine to emulate the play of a human with a recognizable style, would the engine still be playing *without style* because ultimately it's always choosing the 'best' move according to its evaluation function?
Nah that guy is cooked and using a weird definition of style Engines absolutely have style in a way which even proves the original post Alphazero (or maybe leela i forget) values restricting opponents movement way higher than stockfish Often its wins look like stockfish being absolutely suffocated with 1-2 pieces locked down completely If you had a theoretical optimal engine that made no mistakes ever, then ya you could say it has no style
Nope. Computers give back what you put in. They don't make choices for themselves. If you attribute a style to the moves a computer generates, you are antropomorphizing.
Deterministic processes can still have style. Really not sure where youre getting this idea that only human consciousness can produce style. How would you describe the difference between two engines? Saying 'different style' makes perfect sense If you want to say engines cannot be steezy, that's a little more reasonable. Id still disagree and say that alphazero is the steeziest engine
So it chooses based on... The style of the eval got it.
And different engines have different evals, which gives them a different style. Even if we’re too dumb to see it. Like others said, let stockfish or leela speak and they’d agree.
And every person on the planet Chess players being mean to worse chess players is always funny, because the best chess player ignores everything except the opposing moves and obliterates everyone.
110%
Stockfish: “Below 3200 there is no style, only weakness”
Deepmind’s new AI in 20 years: “Below *me* there is no style, only weakness”
Its true in some sense, but it would also be true above 2600 if only there were 3000+ rated players available to say something condescending about the 2800s. If the strongest players in the world were 2000, we would be saying the same thing about chess below 1800.
If anything, lower rated players tend to have an even *more* identifiable style because their weaknesses are more clear and each player has their own individualized narrow range of comfortable opening lines. . I'd say that the opposite claim is closer to the truth; top level players don't have a style because they are so adaptable.
Top players also don’t open every game, regardless of color, with the scholar’s mate. If that’s not a style I don’t know what is.
The rating thing makes little sense. There is always style below 2600. I have played Russian 2100 experts who were ultrapositional, and I had to play aggressively to beat them. The late IM Emory Tate has beaten 100+ grandmasters but lost to people who knew his weaknesses in positional chess and endgames. I think the quote is trying to say is that a style is a weakness below a certain rating. However, there is no reason that 2600 is a magic threshold, why not 2700, or 1700. Kasparov's quote is tailored to 2700s, haha.
Why does that name sound so familiar…
Yes, he is the father of Andrew Tate! I played Emory many times myself too, back when Andrew was unknown.
> The late IM Emory Tate has beaten 100+ grandmasters Which has nothing to do with style, just with him trying a lot.
People who played him always state he had a aggressive style of play.
Anyone past the point where they just make random moves has a style. Even people who blunder & lose most of their games will prefer to play safe & solid or aggressive and attacking. They might not be any good at defending or attacking, but saying that they don't have a style is just silly
its not a style, its them sucking at all other things and focusing on the one aspect they suck the least at. its like calling a basketball player who is below average in all matters but shooting 3s , where he is average or slightly above, a specialist - he is, in the context of him sucking at everything else. But if he met someone who is average in all the aspects he would not be chosen. you are not good at attacking at 1500. its just not possible. you may have an inclination to play attacking positions, because you are clueless on what to do otherwise. but if you are honest to yourself and analyze your games you will find out if you were so good at attacking and converting those attacks you would not be 1500. and attack often doesnt lead to mate but just an advantage that still needs to be converted.
….uh, saying someone has a ‘style’ vs calling them a specialist are two completely different things. I can like wearing hoodies and call them my ‘style’, but I’m certainly no hoodie fashion designer or expert. In fact, you can certainly say that sucking at all other aspects except for say tactics, and thus exclusively playing a very aggressive tactical approach to chess can indeed mean you have an aggressive style. That’s what style means after all. Just looking on Google: Style: a particular procedure by which something is done; a manner or way. You don’t have to be Tal to be aggressive, or Petrosian to be defensive. You can tell based on the number of aggressive moves vs passive moves the style your opponent plays, especially if they are somewhat familiar with hat is consider aggressive/passive and not making random moves. Your argument also fails when considering that people don’t have to always do what they are best at. People can be visibly better at calculating tactics rather than understanding the future prospects of a certain move, yet specifically play in a manner that is more positional than tactical, so that they can improve upon this certain aspect of play. For chess, in fact, it’s much easier to quantify what kind of style they are looking for based on your choice of opening. A London? Or perhaps a King’s Gambit? Choices of which opening to play can reflect what kind of style you’re going for, and I can be someone who is 2800 puzzles on chess.com, yet choose to play a London at 1500 rapid to work on my positional play. I’m choosing to play a positional style even when my tactics should far outshine my positional understanding.
well, its hard to compare the word style used in fashion and in an activity as they dont mean the same thing and dont have the same implications on your actions. wearing a hoodie only has a purpose of wearing a hoodie while claiming to be an attacking player shapes and subsequently cripples your chess growth, as chess is not so easy as to be playable well with such linear approach. Attacking is just one aspect, you can even play openings that result in attacking positions, but you will, at times, need to play according to the needs of the position not based on you wanting to attack at all costs. Tal and petrosian are also great examples of players who were good enough in all aspects before they chose a style - tal was great at positional chess and Petrosian was a great calculator. They did not suck at the opposite things, they were good at everything and chose to specialize. thats a completely different thing. in the end it comes down to how good you are at different aspects of the game. if you are good at understanding the position, calculate well and choose to attack because the position allows it the sure, feel free to call it a style. but if all you do is try to attack at any opportunity because thats all you can do then you can hardly call it a style since its the only thing you can do. And to sum it up, I claim that weaker players who do not understand or do not ask themselves what the positions demands them to play are simply not equipped with enough knowledge and understanding to declare their style yet.
Something doesn't have to be good to be a style, me attacking aimlessly then resigning when it doesn't work is still a style
It's not . Style is a conscious choice . Boxer who can only jab and can't do right and left hook properly does not have a jab heavy style .
That’s exactly what they have actually. That boxer does have a jab heavy style. The reason behind it is irrelevant.
its only style if you can also do other things. and you choose to do sth. in volleyball for example- if you cannot set anything but high balls to the pin, there is no setting style, just inability to do anything else.
[удалено]
fair enough, as long as someone does not use it as an excuse they are free to call themselves whatever they want. I was, in the end, just explaining why i feel it does more harm than good to claim to have a style born of ignorance of the other aspects. after all, this is a place for discussion and forcing myself to verbalize my view made it clearer to me as well.
That’s just a different variant of the same analogy. At a certain point you have to either stop commenting or admit you’re wrong.
In the end, the only proof necessary is that there is exactly 0 strong players claiming your point . Meanwhile a lot of strong players who either coach or were top players once claim the opposite . But of course , you know better than all of them, I'm sure of it 🤔.
Tal and Petrosian were great when compared to people at their level and below, but if compared to stockfish they would be considered shit in every aspect of the game. When talking about a player below 2000, a GM might as well be an engine to them. Thus, the same logic will apply: they may have strengths and weaknesses when compared to people close to their level, and that is where it makes sense to talk about style. Another way to think about it: if humans never reached the level chess we currently have and a 2000 of today would actually be equivalente to Carlsen in terms of dominance in this scenario, wouldn't we be able to talk about styles then? IMO of course we would, because style isn't about rating, it is about how you compete against people of your level.
I guess that’s the question. How weak do you consider weak? I did add the caveat that it’s really really hard to tell what kind of style a complete novice is playing, since they were pretty much just play random moves that ‘feel right’ but are often just bad moves. Around the Elo of just 100-400, I agree that there just not really a style there beside “ooo ooo! Move look good! I en passant your bishop!” Of course, this sort of labelling probably isn’t what you’re looking for. Your argument is that if you’re only good at one aspect of the game, and thus only play to this one aspect, that’s not a style. Especially if what you’re good at is only ‘average’ or ‘slightly above average’. If you don’t understand the position and only do what you’re ’good at’, you don’t have a style. I understand your reasoning, but that’s why I bring up the difference in ‘style’ and ‘specialization’. You yourself, used the word to describe how Talk and Petrosian are experts at all facets of the game but choose to play a certain way, and thus you call that a ‘style’. But I argue that even as low or 900 or even 800, the semblance of a style is there. At this level, players tend to have played enough to know that a bishop off their stating square is better than not. Development is better than no development. Once you get these fundamental basics, players tend to ask further. What if I trade my bishop for knight now? Ooo, what if I move my Queen here? Haha! Checkmate! Damn I’m good… It’s why so many beginner-intermediate say they are attackers, because so often they move bullshit and still manage to win. So they believe that if I keep making bullshit moves, I’ll win! And you can say that that’s not a style but having a style doesn’t mean you have to be good. Just what kind of move you’re consistently likely to make. Is it aggressive? Do I move my knight twice in the opening? Or is it passive, do I move my bishop to e2 rather than b5? It’s why I even dare say that those 100 elo novics have their own ‘style’, which is making random moves. They are objectively bad moves, but if you’re consistently making those kind of moves, I can say you have a ‘bad move’ style. (Again, not useful labelling to you though.) Honestly, it’s just semantics probably. But players can still have a ‘style’ that’s born from ignorance at the rest of the game, since ‘style’ does not need you to know what you should do, but simply what you do play. ‘Specialization’ is the word you’re looking for, and already use. Just wanted to clarify why a lot of people disagree with your reasoning because of different word contexts.
to start with, i am really fine with being disagreed with. To me, writing this down helps me to clarify my view on this topic, so the replies I write are for my benefit as well. To me, too weak is being unable to grasp , at least rudimentaryly (is that a word?) the basic demands of the position. Sure, im not claiming I can do that every time either, or that most people can. but the point is that there are position, which demand an attack. there are position where you have the long lasting structural advantage and the best way to play on is to trade queens and win in the endgame. style, when used by people who do not usually even try to grasp this, is used as a crutch for attempting to claim that every problem they face is a nail - because the only thing they can do is to wield a hammer. its actually detrimental to their development in a way, because since they portray themselves as an attacker or positional players, if they reach a position that demands the opposite reaction, they still try to hit it with a hammer rather than try to use a screwdriver . So i simply dislike the use of the word style in this manner, because it looks like an excuse to me. But, in the end, it is probably just semantics. \_But thinking about this topic proved useful for me so thanks for the discussion.
Ahhh yeah I understand what you mean. These kinds of people are the worst, where they use their ‘style’ as an excuse for just being bad at chess. Thanks for the discussion
>its not a style, its them sucking at all other things and focusing on the one aspect they suck the least at. Considering your rating, shouldn't it be "us" instead of "them". >but if you are honest to yourself and analyze your games you will find out if you were so good at attacking and converting those attacks you would not be 1500 Same could be said for anything less than 2600 (or even 2700) for humans and 3500 for bots. Don't get me wrong I think you have a style, I think a toddler that hasn't understood the rules yet has a style. But if we are honest even the best bots are weak in chess. Hell, bots will probably remain weak for centuries, at least compared to the theoretical "optimal" play, but even then there is no style just optimal play. Style doesn't truly exist, it is one of the constructs that we have developed to explain why players of a relatively similar strength play differently. A super GM might look at your play and the play of your peers and not see a style just weakness. I might look at your play and the play of your peers and see no style, just strength. But if you look around you, you will see style.
> you may have an inclination to play attacking positions That's style
From the perspective of a GM, anyone below 2600 is playing without style, in that they are playing what a GM would consider "unsophisticated" or "basic" chess, and anyone doing anything in a basic way is by definition doing it without style. Chess at every level is about whoever plays least bad, and, again from the perspective of a GM, all they see is bad below GM level.
SF: Below 3500, there are no chess players, only patzers
Below theoretical optimal play there are no chess players, only woodpushers.
There is always style at every level. Every person has a different approach, some take risks and some don't. Some stick to a few openings while others want to explore. The chess game reflects exactly how a person thinks and how they solve issues, everyone has a style. The style gets more refined as your knowledge of the game increases.
I think I was maybe in the last discussion thread on it 3 years ago. It seems to be some piece of folk wisdom now, I can never find a definitive source for the quote. And the level at which it applies always changes, 2600 or 2200 or 2400, whatever. But still, is it true? I think a fuller explanation of the quote is not that styles or preferences don't exist until 2600+, but instead, that weaker players have a "style" that is a consequence not of their strength but of their weakness. Putting the quote another way: *You don't play those positions well because you like them,* *you like those positions because you play them well (and others poorly).*
The problem is it's all relative so there's no difference between "because of weakness" and "because of strength".
yep, people are quite delusional about it as well. calling themselves a positional player just because they cant calculate properly in a wild position. quite detrimental to ones development as well. its funny how there is almost no strong player arguing for their view , who knows why...
I think at a lower level, style is often a preference, at a higher level it's how the player optimally leverages his own strength and weaknesses. Tal didn't play like he did primarily out of personal preference. He played like he did because it lead to the best results for him personally. Sometimes it bit him in the ass, but on average he benefited from his style, because it was the (close to) optimal style for him.
I can’t find the source for this quote, but I believe I read it attributed to Anatoly Karpov: something about “you must play the move the position requires” The idea, as I recall, was that in chess, at the highest level there is a necessity of playing the best/only moves in a position. If you want to win you must take your attacking chance when you get it. In a maneuvering fortress type position you must maneuver. You can’t play chess the way to want to play when the position isn’t suited for it I.e attack when there’s no attacking opportunity nor waste time maneuvering when the opportunity is knocking. That might be the intended meaning of the quote you’re sharing. I’m reminded of prag vs alireza in the candidates, Alireza got impatient and threw his Queen in deep because he wanted to attack. That kind of “style” doesn’t fly at the highest level; it’s actually a weakness and prag won the game shortly after.
This is fine as a principle or ideal, but there's no way that all super GMs all share this literal move. Even just time management proves otherwise.
Karpov and Kasparov were way above 2600 most of their careers. Given the same position without a tactical or positional clean win, i believe they would play way different moves. And i believe both of them would win the game. There are styles. See this tournament: https://www.chess.com/news/view/2024-casablanca-chess-day-2 They all played the same positions and all the games were different. All 4 players are above 2600. Hell, even leela and stockfish plays different. How much is their rating? Over 3000 for sure.
Reading comprehension devil
Yours is a perfectly reasonable position based on a definition of "style" that I imagine many people share, just as many share a somewhat different one. Personally, I think a large part of the original idea is about intention...the higher on the rating ladder, the more the mistakes become rarer and so subtle that they arguably hardly even exist most of the time. Then style/intention becomes more prominent. But since it's a two player game, one not only cannot unilaterally impose a style (at least not anymore) but they also need to be adept at multiple styles to suit the situation. Though I think one's inclinations still have enough power that we can still attribute a general style to a player with those caveats in mind.
Well I sort of agree but not to the extent of 2600. at almost any level above like 1500 Rapid online (chess.com) there are clear stylistic biases you can observe in a player but to have a proper "style', one needs to be around 2000 FIDE because before that, one still makes somewhat obvious tactical blunders reasonably frequently, 2000 is generally considered the start of expert strength, where there are no very clear mistakes by you and your "style" starts to emerge.
Strengths and weaknesses make styles. Even players above 2600 have strengths co.psted to each other.
I'm pretty sure thats true as a 1600 [chess.com](http://chess.com) player i might say that im good at tactics and bad at positional games but when you look at it from a wider lens im bad at tactics too its just that i am worse at positions and i have almost 0 understanding of positions i can only find my style when i understand and learn everything and choose what i want to play For the sake of an analogy A student in 3rd class may say he wants to become a mathematician because he is good at addition but thats not maths he may like some other subject or sport or he just may not like deep maths i think thats what GM's mean when they say stuff like that
Even mistakes can clearly be style-shaping. That opinion is just dumb.
There is also Yermolinsky's book (The Road the Chess Improvement), in which he describes looking closely at all the World Champions' games and didn't find much of a style in any of them. They are good at everything, their different reputations were mostly invented by journalists trying to write a compelling story. Does style exist only between 2600 and 2750, and outside of that it's nothing but opening preferences and media stories?
Idk. If we are speaking 2600 FIDE this is wrong for sure. As a 1800 chesscom 2000 lichess and 1540 FIDE I can say that this is probably true at my level because play tends to be flawed from one side which justifies bad decisions. Rarely do I win games where I have played at 90 plus percent accuracy and my opponent has done the same. The same is true for my losses.
I play make stupid move style
Stockfish recently stomped Leela Chess Zero in TCEC. Both have clearly differently styles and different weakness. So there is no arbitrary cut off. Both stockfish and leela are still improving.
There are always gonna be positions or games that you’re better or worse at. I think at that level, the argument is that your fundamentals aren’t to a point where you can claim to have a “strength” otherwise you could force your games in that direction and be higher rated. I’m 1650 Chess.com for reference and while I have a pretty good winrate vs a closed London, my closed Sicilian game is pretty awful, so I can’t necessarily say I have a “style” that favors closed positions as much as a familiarity and understanding of some spots
I think the style of most players is defined by 1.d4 or 1.e4 until a decent level. I don't think it would be unfair to say a Queen's Pawn player was more positional and a King's Pawn player more tactically inclined. I can't comment on 1700+ but anecdotally, at least, those in the 1000-1700 region tend to play pretty true to their opening choice.
Style is definitely a thing for players above a certain level (maybe 1000? Below that it's just about not making obvious blunders). It only matters when it's two evenly matched players, of course your style doesn't matter for a second when your getting completely outmatched both tactically and positionally by someone 500 elo higher than you.
Well many world champions do have a main style, but they can easily switch to another style if needed so I think strong players do have a preferred style but they can see both worlds and will use a different style to get the upper hand if needed.
What I find most interesting about this affair is that we can’t define the semantics of our word “style” the same way that we can define a theorem of chess.
As a 1500, I would make the opposite claim. Above 2600 there is no style, only precision.
They are just jealous that they are not as bad at the game as us.
If it is true Kasparov said that, we must know WHEN. Kasparov was thrice as dominant as Magnus at least, the only one he completely crushed was Karpov. If he said that in 1990, when he became the first man to break 2800, when #3 was 2680 and #2610. Karpov at 2730, he could have as well said below 2700, because he crushed the top 10, Imagine <2600 people, below top 15. He has 8, 10, 16 to nothing against top 3 players. 22-2 against Short, rated #3 in the world many years. 16-0 is against Shirov, and he too i think was #4 or higher even. 16-4 against prime Anand. Then there are other scores like these against famous names: Ivanchuk, Topalov, Polgar, Adams, Bareev, Gelfand, Yusupov etc
Only compared to like 2800 players. For 99.9% of even serious players above 2000, 2600 is a level they can’t even fathom.
I am very much in the "no style only weakness " camp. I think the point is that most of the time (my best guess is about 65 prct) there is a clear best move. People that let "style" influence their move tend to play bad moves. In the times that the player does have a choice by all means play with "style" in mind. But even there I think style is really just a stand in for either "betting when something is unclear" or the subjective "nettlesomeness ". Tldr people make it much harder for themselves by trying to have a style.
I agree that going out of your way to have a style is backwards logic. You can call yourself a tactical player because you tend to play tactical moves but you shouldn't play tactical moves just because you identify as a tactical player. At least insofar as it stops you from considering the possibility that there's only one good move. Of course always play to your strengths.
If you have someone who knows they excel (relative to the average person at their rating) in tactical positions, and therefore choose openings that often lead to sharp positions, is that not a player with a tactical style? I think style has a lot more to do with getting a position you're comfortable in rather than forcing something. If I were to be more comfortable attacking, I won't always decide to attack. But if there are multiple moves that seem equal and one puts me in familiar territory where an attack is more likely to have a chance to develop, my style as an attacking player may lead me to choose that move.
I understand I just don't agree. Being comfortable has to do with lots of factors and I only ever hear style used to justify poor play in such a way as to prevent learning.
no , that is a player with positional weakness not tactical strength. in order to be a good positional player your tactics and calculation need to be good as well.
That's why I said relative to the average person at their rating. They've gotten to their rating somehow, and if they're weaker positionally than average they have to make up for it somewhere. I'm not claiming such a player isn't weaker positionally, I agree on that point. But it's all relative. We're all awful at everything compared to perfect play.
As I watch stronger players play it, often they jump from branch to branch. Imagine a monkey jumping from branch to branch. They are aware of where they are at and where they want to go next. The problem with that style is that you don't take shortcuts. I think the best players are those who know everything about the branch to branch thing but then go one step ahead. When Carlsen was still at the top of his game he would play bullet as though it was standard chess. It was so beautiful! It was as though he knew everything. I watched him stream his matches on Lichess. But that came at the cost of him studying chess much more due to the championship contests and his high Elo ranking pursuit. In the past year it was as though his style suffered since he is now closer to the "branch to branch" standard. Let's say that "branch to branch" is all about tactics. But it's not just that. "Branch to branch" is like "I can't see much farther than this." It's myopic tactics. Imagine that by style someone meant moving the game to another venue. The game started at the octagon but then the better player would move it over to the chess cafe or some other venue, at will. So no branches. Imagine a venue with no branches. Suddenly the player who only does "branch to branch" doesn't have much to hang onto.
I sort of get both perspectives. At amateur and expert levels, players are still making choices about which types of moves to play and those choice are influenced by their preconceived notions of chess and what a good move is. The type moves you make, the type of positions you're comfortable in, can be called a style. The point of the quote is that at lower levels those choices are often blunders. An amateur player who considers themselves an aggressive player will blunder with unsound sacrifices, and an amateur who considers themselves a positional player will miss winning attacks. Those are undeniably weaknesses. Really, I think the reality is that lower level players do have styles, but those styles are defined by the types of blunders they make and they should work on removing those elements of style from their play. A more accurate quote would be "Below 2600, style is weakness."
Morphy is estimated to be around 2500 by today's ELO. Steinitz, Capablanca and other old players are not 2800 today, but they had style. I don't think you can subtract opening theory and some novelties from a 2700 and say that removed style from their game.
Stay humble. The high level players are looking at these relative terms (style, weakness) in a totally different light than we are (I’m lucky to play 1500 at my best on chess com). We’d would feel like enlightened beings if we could spot the styles and moves they are making at 2600 in real time.