Antillian wrote on 12/01/10 at 13:34:46:


Probably he/she will play more brilliant games and more tournament wins imply more money in the pocket. If not brilliant games and more money is a nice overall performance what is? 

I've contested in other threads that the more aggressive players have a higher variance in their score, which allows them to more frequently post high scores than others. I've frequently used the Amero-Latvian Alex Shabalov  as an example, who can run through tournaments like no one is worth playing there, and can also lose to 2200's if he's just not playing well.

I attended a lecture last Night given by GM Nigel Short. The lecture was short but sweet. Nigel showed two games, one with Ponomariov played in 2003 and another with French GM Fressiant played this year at the olympiad. In Short v. Ponomariov Nigel essayed the evans gambit. In the second game he played the Max lange attack with Bg5 instead of the main line with Re1. In both games the positions became extremely complicated and both ponomariov and fressiant got into extreme time touble.  Nigel discussed how if when playing the top guys in the world you don't put pressure on your opponent then they play almost perfectly and quite easily draw. Do players with a more aggressive style generally win more tournaments because of shorts claim? Not sure the last time someone like kramnik won something. Do you think this explains the reason for kasparov's dominance and Veselin topalov's quite successful run in the middle of the 2000's.  Are there any players who adhere to this style in the recent year, nakamura maybe?