Best way to get a universal style by studying world class players?

[Kevin Pacey]

I sometimes wonder what the best or fastest way to acquire a universal style is, if one does so especially by studying the games of world class players.

I see an advantage to studying x number of such strong players, each with a clear style that is not very universal (this is pretty much the approach I used long ago). In fact, such players may often not be modern strong players. The latter may well tend to be more universal types of players, and very eclectic (and thus more mysterious), in that they studied any number of players past and present while becoming strong and forming their styles. With the old masters or less recent world champions, you could often see a strongly defined style, and where these players' thinking was coming from.

In studying a modern universal world class player, on the other hand, one has a ready model to emulate, complete with an up to date repertoire and fresh games to study. This may be ideal for trying to quickly acquire a universal style, if one can come close to understanding such a player's thinking. In such a case though, it may be all but necessary that the player often writes about his own games and his own way of studying and preparing, if the person studying the modern world class player is not at least master level strength.

Perhaps people have their own thoughts on this topic. Not being young, I never learned from a coach's thoughts on this or other matters.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Best way to get a universal style by studying world class players?

I've been following chess since the mid-90s and of course I read a lot about masters from the past.

As for the 'universal style', the answer is unfortunately very simple: the computer. Chess engines do play a universal game. Sacrificing when justified, defending when required, switching to counter-attack literally on the first occasion and so on... As a result, I find that all modern GMs have, to a certain extent, a universal style.

What does that mean in practical terms for us mere amateurs? Not much. My advice is often the same: try to identify a weakness in your game and especially in your game style. And then challenge yourself by analyzing the games of a GM who was very good in that area you feel you have a weakness. So if you like tactical games, forget about that book by Tal. And if you're more inclined towards positional play, don't waste too much time on that Karpov book.

Do that over and over as you progress and yes, maybe someday you'll play something close to a universal style. ;)

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Best way to get a universal style by studying world class players?

I've been following chess since the mid-90s and of course I read a lot about masters from the past.

As for the 'universal style', the answer is unfortunately very simple: the computer. Chess engines do play a universal game. Sacrificing when justified, defending when required, switching to counter-attack literally on the first occasion and so on... As a result, I find that all modern GMs have, to a certain extent, a universal style.

What does that mean in practical terms for us mere amateurs? Not much. My advice is often the same: try to identify a weakness in your game and especially in your game style. And then challenge yourself by analyzing the games of a GM who was very good in that area you feel you have a weakness. So if you like tactical games, forget about that book by Tal. And if you're more inclined towards positional play, don't waste too much time on that Karpov book.

Do that over and over as you progress and yes, maybe someday you'll play something close to a universal style. ;)

Hi Mathieu

'Universal' style unfortunately is a bit hard to precisely define. It might mean the ability to play any sort of position equally well, and some might add that a truly universal player would have no personal preference in choosing between equally good moves in a position (if available), except to take into account his opponent's perceived playing weaknesses or the tournament or match situation. Some human players, such as Lasker in the past, deliberately choose second best moves at times, for such reasons, but an engine does not generally do this afaik, unless specially programmed to do so for a specific match opponent, or is to play more randomly if on a lower skill level setting. Engines are not yet perfect at chess, so they must still be weaker at some things than others, too.

Upon moving in 2005 I sold many of my chess books, including game collections (figuring databases and engines would do for a master like myself). I now am slowly obtaining game collection books again, some old, some new. Funny you should mention Karpov and Tal. I was given books on these players some years ago, though neither player I studied much as a young man. The same goes for Petrosian and Kasparov, other gift book subjects. There seem to be many ways to obtain a fairly balanced/universal style. A book on Magnus Carlsen was the only one I bought myself. Study just these 5 players and one might end up with a universal style. I'd note that of these only Petrosian (and Carlsen) at times played slightly offbeat openings (another thing engines rarely, if ever, do?).

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Best way to get a universal style by studying world class players?

I sort of agree that if you study Tal, Petrosian, Karpov, Kasparov and Carlsen... you might have all that is required to develop a universal style. But somehow, Fischer is missing and that seems wrong.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Best way to get a universal style by studying world class players?

I sort of agree that if you study Tal, Petrosian, Karpov, Kasparov and Carlsen... you might have all that is required to develop a universal style. But somehow, Fischer is missing and that seems wrong.

Fischer is one of the players I studied more intensively as a young man. He influenced many of my opening repertoire choices with White, but not much as Black (though I did take up the French Winawer as my first steady repertoire choice as a boy, because he had a reputation as having a hard time against it with White).

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Best way to get a universal style by studying world class players?

...
'Universal' style unfortunately is a bit hard to precisely define. It might mean the ability to play any sort of position equally well, and some might add that a truly universal player would have no personal preference in choosing between equally good moves in a position (if available), except to take into account his opponent's perceived playing weaknesses or the tournament or match situation...

Fwiw, Spassky in his prime was thought by many to have a universal style, in that he always played according to the requirements of the position. I'd note that I read somewhere that during his first match with Fischer, he complained to a member of his team (trying to prepare him) that he 'was not a variations player', whatever that meant exactly. Later in his career Spassky's style became more defensive than previously. Magnus Carlsen is thought to already have a pretty universal style, though again not often playing deep complicated mainlines in the opening, afaik.