Playing Styles Deconstructed

The perception of style is apparently greatly exaggerated at the top professional level; furthermore, misunderstanding the concept can be a serious limiting factor for Class players.  At the top levels, one can easily find examples of "positional, defensive" World Champions like Tigran Petrosian playing brilliant attacking chess and combinations, or "tactical, aggressive" players like Kasparov winning with relatively quiet, maneuvering games such as in the must-win final game of the 1987 World Championship. Certain strong players have deserved reputations for liking and playing particular position-types and the openings that usually lead to those particular position-types but that should not be confused with an inability to cross the tactical/positional divide when the position requires it.

The most important aspect of this for the improving player is not a theoretical debate about the styles of World Champions, though, but how the idea of "style" can affect our play and hold us back.  Regardless of what we call ourselves, either tactical or positional players, mentally over-identifying with a style has some major detrimental effects on our performance.  Most seriously from a practical standpoint during a game, it necessarily limits our ability to perceive and evaluate candidate moves as part of our thinking process. Moves that we consciously or unconsciously characterize as being outside of our style are either not examined or incorrectly evaluated, usually in a dismissive manner.

The following are some specific thoughts on how over-reliance on a "style" can hold you back as a player.

Tactical Style: this (as with any other style) will only get you so far as a player. It seems that low Expert level (2000-2100) is probably the top limit for tactical specialists; Michael de la Maza's well-known story is one anecdotal indication of this.  (For those who are into statistics, you can look at his career record and make your own judgments about his playing strength versus various classes of players.) Naturally, a 2000 rating would sound good enough for a lot of people, but it is still short of mastery.  Also, for those of us without hard-wired chess brains, the ratings ceiling for being a tactical specialist may be much lower than 2000.  Here are some other typical limitations that may be associated with this style: 1) When tactics are not currently present in a position, cannot identify a useful plan to make progress. 2) Default plan is a kingside attack, regardless of the position. 3) Neglects study of positional factors, since everything is about tactics. 4) Neglects endgame study, because doesn't expect to make it that far, either winning or losing in the middlegame.

Positional Style: based on some personal observations, an insistence on "playing positionally" and ignoring tactics will not get you along the path to mastery even as far as the tactical specialists.  A positional player needs to be able to spot tactics in key positions, in order to win. Some other general limitations on playing effectiveness include: 1) Avoiding entering into tactical play, even when it would result in material or positional benefits. 2) Being unwilling to undertake gambits or sacrifice material. 3) Being unable to effectively conduct attacks on the opponent's king position. 4) Having a tendency to draw a won position rather than win it.

A majority of players start off tactical and then acquire positional knowledge, although a significant minority (including some outstanding players) think of themselves as positional players from the start. Normally we identify with a general approach to playing chess that we like the most, based on our early experiences. However, that's not necessarily the best approach for us as players over the long-term; furthermore, we all acquire some bad habits or erroneous ideas as we struggle to understand the game. The point of breaking free of the limitations of a self-defined style isn't to negate our own preferences; rather, it's to free us from our mental chains and open up a new world of possibilities on the board.  Regardless of the path we choose, it takes time and effort to think in new ways and then apply our new knowledge. You should continue moving along the path for a long time.