Hi! When I first started playing chess a few months ago, I was a pure attacking player. I made sacrifices as often as I thought was necessary, and won almost all of my games against my opponents (other kids in my school, and some teachers), and I want to get back on that track. I stopped and ended up accidentally adopting a very strong positional style, and can't seem to break it. Every time I try to play aggressively, I get destroyed, and especially so if I play aggressive openings, like the Sicilian in particular.
I'm well versed with positional techniques and elements and such, but I just can't seem to figure out mid-high level tactics and ideas! I should also mention that the reason I want to try and stop playing positionally is because it simply feels unnatural to do so.
I don't quite understand the terminologies.
I always thought having positional understanding also knowing when you can attack and when your opponent has defensive resources within a position. That is, you maneuver in a manner that respectfully provides you advantages in space, initiative, development, piece placement, piece activity, etc. You play what the position calls for.
To be aggressive is to provoke weaknesses, to hit two weaknesses, to extend your pieces and pawns in a manner that forces your opponent back. But will not always be correct, especially if your opponent has resources of some sort to fend you off and leave you misplaced/without a progressive attack.
It just sounds like another misunderstanding of the position if you're being crushed/halted. You may or may not be playing against stronger players. Blitz or long-timed games will also dictate your analytic skills. Regardless, you have to look over your games and figure out what went wrong.
Want to be more "aggressive?" Then look over the moves during your post-game analysis.
Make an account, too, so you can keep all your games for future review.
Well, what I mean to say is that I've taken a much slower, defensive, less risky position in terms of my play, instead of the wild sacrifices and constant attacks that I used to do, where the objective from move 1 was to crush my opponent. I look towards reaching an endgame with a slight advantage, as opposed to winning immediately in the middlegame.
I'm not sure if that's very clear, anyway
Okay, but I still think the best thing you can do with any chess game is to review and figure out everything once it ends.
You can change your mentality if you find the aggressive strategy you want to employ. As you keep reviewing, you learn, make a change, and become.
It's possible to confuse "positional" styles with "tactical" or "material". Positional advantages are named very generally with that term; it could mean you're actually very aggressive and good at sacrificing as necessary, just as you want.
Maybe what you're thinking is that you used to be a positional player, but now you're an overly safe, stable player (sort of like Korchnoi, who basically doesn't play gambits).
Morphy, for example, was a positional player, not a material player who never wanted to gambit off pieces or pawns. (In fact that may be related to how the pride in many other great players contributed to his alienation away from chess for life.)
Just look for what gains you the most. *shrug* Don't strive to be a certain "type". Just play to win.
Kasparov said just play 1.e4
b7g2
a2a1
b4b5
