Player types

[Hans Jung]

https://en.chessbase.com/post/player-types-the-summary I havent heard these labels before: The activist, the pragmatist, the reflector, the theorist Interesting. What do you think?

[Aris Marghetis]

Yes, this is interesting. It reminds me of "Villain Types" in poker. My initial reaction is two challenges:

1) I'm such a weak player (<2000) that I have simple blunderous moves to get out of my game first!
2) I'm not convinced yet that these can be taken advantage of as usefully as they could be in poker?

I would be very interested in hearing from better chess players, at least 2200, who also play poker.

As usual Hans, thanks, you're like our personal reviewer of so much new chess content out there!

[Brad Thomson]

Let us have a chess only discussion. This question has always interested me. I have had many conversations with both Hergott and O'Donnell on this very subject with respect to their own playing styles. Deen and Tom are fine examples of gentlemen and also of extremely good chess players. They are of approximately equal credentials and accomplishments, and are close to equal in their personal encounters. Yet they play completely differently. The contrast between their styles is extreme. Almost unbelievable. Hans?

[Erik Malmsten]

Let us have a chess only discussion. This question has always interested me. I have had many conversations with both Hergott and O'Donnell on this very subject with respect to their own playing styles. Deen and Tom are fine examples of gentlemen and also of extremely good chess players. They are of approximately equal credentials and accomplishments, and are close to equal in their personal encounters. Yet they play completely differently. The contrast between their styles is extreme. Almost unbelievable. Hans?

But what exciting "labels" can you give to their two different styles?

from https://thechessworld.com/articles/g...-play-against/

5 Most Typical Types of Chess Players

Chess Style 1. Attacking Maniac
This is a very common and probably the most spectacular type of chess players. They try to mimic Fischer’s ‘sac, sac, mate’ approach, but oftentimes it does not work as expected. They like creating complications go for a crazy (even premature) attack and either win big or lose big. In other words, they are some sort of chess gamblers whose main weapon often is to surprise an opponent with a sudden, unexpected pressure and to win the game.

Chess Style 2. Passive Player
This is another pretty common type of chess players. They play extremely passively without taking any risks whatsoever. They are complete opposites of the attacking maniacs. That is their weakness. Sometimes these players will not win a pawn just because it ‘feels unsafe’ and involves a minimum amount of risk.

Chess Style 3. Exchanger
This is a type of players that likes to exchange pieces every time there is a chance for an exchange to take place. Their goal is to exchange all the pieces and then to draw or possibly to win the game. These players like playing endgames, and are trying to avoid any middle game complications.

Chess Style 4. Perfectionist
This type of chess players try to find absolutely the best move on the board possible. They won’t settle for anything less than perfect. They will analyze a simple looking position for 45 minutes only to decide which of the two rooks to use for occupying an open file. There are two main problems with this approach: 1. The perfect moves usually do not exist in many practical chess positions 2. There is a limited amount of time each player has for a game of chess.

Chess Style 5. Strategist
This type of chess players like planning everything starting from simple pawn moves and ending with the mating nets. That is not necessary a bad thing, unless it goes extreme. For example, if a strategist will have an easy endgame win with an extra pawn, or a complicated, and unclear middle game, they will choose the second option.

[Aris Marghetis]

Let us have a chess only discussion. This question has always interested me. I have had many conversations with both Hergott and O'Donnell on this very subject with respect to their own playing styles. Deen and Tom are fine examples of gentlemen and also of extremely good chess players. They are of approximately equal credentials and accomplishments, and are close to equal in their personal encounters. Yet they play completely differently. The contrast between their styles is extreme. Almost unbelievable. Hans?

Excellent example Brad. I had lessons with both of them, but my results after lessons with Tom were better. I've believed that was because Tom's relative pragmatism resonated more with me.

It would be enormously interesting to hear Tom and/or Deen compare their styles.

[Hans Jung]

Excellent example Brad. I had lessons with both of them, but my results after lessons with Tom were better. I've believed that was because Tom's relative pragmatism resonated more with me.

It would be enormously interesting to hear Tom and/or Deen compare their styles.

We would have to get them to read chesstalk first.
Yo, Tom are you reading this - we would like to hear from you (with all due respect)

[Hans Jung]

But what exciting "labels" can you give to their two different styles?

from https://thechessworld.com/articles/g...-play-against/

5 Most Typical Types of Chess Players

Chess Style 1. Attacking Maniac
This is a very common and probably the most spectacular type of chess players. They try to mimic Fischer’s ‘sac, sac, mate’ approach, but oftentimes it does not work as expected. They like creating complications go for a crazy (even premature) attack and either win big or lose big. In other words, they are some sort of chess gamblers whose main weapon often is to surprise an opponent with a sudden, unexpected pressure and to win the game.

Chess Style 2. Passive Player
This is another pretty common type of chess players. They play extremely passively without taking any risks whatsoever. They are complete opposites of the attacking maniacs. That is their weakness. Sometimes these players will not win a pawn just because it ‘feels unsafe’ and involves a minimum amount of risk.

Chess Style 3. Exchanger
This is a type of players that likes to exchange pieces every time there is a chance for an exchange to take place. Their goal is to exchange all the pieces and then to draw or possibly to win the game. These players like playing endgames, and are trying to avoid any middle game complications.

Chess Style 4. Perfectionist
This type of chess players try to find absolutely the best move on the board possible. They won’t settle for anything less than perfect. They will analyze a simple looking position for 45 minutes only to decide which of the two rooks to use for occupying an open file. There are two main problems with this approach: 1. The perfect moves usually do not exist in many practical chess positions 2. There is a limited amount of time each player has for a game of chess.

Chess Style 5. Strategist
This type of chess players like planning everything starting from simple pawn moves and ending with the mating nets. That is not necessary a bad thing, unless it goes extreme. For example, if a strategist will have an easy endgame win with an extra pawn, or a complicated, and unclear middle game, they will choose the second option.

Well done Erik! but you havent covered them all. You should write a book about Canadian chess playing styles (seriously)
I enjoyed your descriptions.

[Hans Jung]

I would call Deen a reflector strategist (to combine Erik's term with Karsten Mueller's term) and agree with Aris that Tom is a pragmatist. Interestingly I have a much better score with Deen than with Tom. Of course, my last 5 games with Deen were draws but Tom tore me apart from start to finish mainly because Tom was so accurate. In my only great opening position against Tom I was so large but his resourcefulness combined with my slipshod play turned the game around totally. (at least thats the way I remember it) I'll have to hunt that scoresheet down so everybody can have a laugh.

[Hans Jung]

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1623903 It was after this game that my score with Deen turned dramatically.

[Aris Marghetis]

I would call Deen a reflector strategist (to combine Erik's term with Karsten Mueller's term) and agree with Aris that Tom is a pragmatist. Interestingly I have a much better score with Deen than with Tom. Of course, my last 5 games with Deen were draws but Tom tore me apart from start to finish mainly because Tom was so accurate. In my only great opening position against Tom I was so large but his resourcefulness combined with my slipshod play turned the game around totally. (at least thats the way I remember it) I'll have to hunt that scoresheet down so everybody can have a laugh.

I'm not as good a player as yourself Hans, and I don't think I've ever played either Deen or Tom in a tournament, just had lessons with them. Back to Brad bringing up Deen and Tom, thanks for a superb example of different styles! Hypothetically, I do wonder what a 2700-GM would think of in preparing to play vs. Deen or Tom? Which circles back to differentiating vs. chess player "types".

But then, could a player U2000 make use of this?!

[Hans Jung]

Complex questions Aris. I think direct answers lie in checking databases with Tom and Deens games and see what strong GMs played against them and if and why they were successful.
as for under 2000 players I think the answer lies in opening preparation and what to prepare. Which means being willing to take on a wide variety of openings which is of course a lot of work.
I'm going to have to mull this over further. Brad is right, its an interesting topic.

[Hans Jung]

What do you think Brad? How would you describe Tom's and Deen's styles? Even if you just name the highlights that you noticed.

[Erik Malmsten]

Well done Erik! but you havent covered them all. You should write a book about Canadian chess playing styles (seriously)
I enjoyed your descriptions.

I didn't write this list. It was from the chessworld website. There's positional (rooks on open file to 7th rank) or tactical players (kingside pawn storm). I'm a cheapo artist and some people are cement (play solid and wait for a mistake), some are book players (play like a GM or 1400 player when out of their lines). Back circa 1970s there was a variety of GM styles and openings. Canadians followed the lead of Suttles. But, nowdays, GMs play universal style, be flexible, have to be good at whatever the position demands. Can sacrifice brilliantly or grind it out. They also have insights from computers, more knowledge is out there.

[Brad Thomson]

Deen is more likely to win or lose, Tom is more likely to draw. With Deen you often have a chance to win and a chance to lose, with Tom you often have a chance to draw. Playing Tom one would prefer having the White pieces, playing Deen one would not mind the Black pieces so much. The choice is between death by decapitation at the hands of Hergott, or death by slow torture at the hands of O'Donnell. Both are sadistic.

[Hans Jung]

Well described Brad. Interestingly Deen stopped just short of the GM title and was number 2 in Canada for many years. Tom was solid IM. Though of the two I would much rather have preferred to play Deen because I had chances. I guess that speaks to my style.
I exxperienced a lot of slow torture from Tom. Its a terrible thing to go through.