The Formulation Of Plans And Personal Style

Many chess amateurs like to talk about whether certain openings are unsuitable because they don’t suit their personal style. They might additional argue that their chess style is something which very hard to change because it reflects their nature. I don’t believe in this at all and would like to explain my reasons.

The formulation of plans and personal style is closely connected. For instance in the Queen’s Gambit Declined Exchange Variation White can adopt either a minority attack or playing with his central majority (the f3 and e4 plan). There is the nice example given by Sam Davies in his last post.

Similarly there are two plans in the position given below, and in both of these White is winning.

Q: White has two plans at his disposal. White of these do you prefer and why?
Plan A: Greek Gift sacrifice
Plan B: Winning a piece with Bd2

Here I would prefer to go for winning a piece with Bd2 because I am biased towards simple chess and I found that simplicity suits me better in chess. Yet in my early days I tended to play very aggressively. This contradiction shows that personal style in chess can be developed and it has little to do with someone’s nature.

Here is an exercise to prove my point. If you believe you’re an aggressive player then quickly go through some games of Capablanca or Geller. You will soon realize that their play is not that different to your own.

Ashvin Chauhan