I have studied a number of professionals but have yet to find one that really synergizes with my play style.

I am looking for a player who focuses on good solid territory in the beginning and then due to the safety of their groups is able to viciously attack.

Does this remind you of any professional?

I think you might find http://senseis.xmp.net/?ProfessionalPlayersGoStyles an interesting page.

Isn't that Cho Chikun's style? (I haven't looked at his games, but I heard once that that is how he plays)

I would also recommend watching Dwyrin's YT videos of Legend88, a pro who plays on Tygem.

_________________
Lose 1,000 games? Challenge Accepted.

Study Lee Changho.

Kitani Minoru adopted that style in his later years. I just finished playing through the first game in his 10 game match with Go Seigen held at Kamakura, and it's an almost paradigmatic example of building up solid territory before a devastating attack.

Among modern pro players, you can also look at Choi Cheolhan's and Chen Yaoye's games.

This kind of style is quite popular theses days, so a lot of young players have such games too (well, when they don't go rampaging all over the board ^^).

how about a balanced playing style instead?

You play the moves you want to play. Let Subotai play the moves Subotai wants to play.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

Can someone elaborate a bit on this idea? My simple-minded idea is to associate playing for solid territory with shinogi or amashi--being able to make weak groups live without harming yourself (perhaps after letting your opponent get a moyo). You can end up attacking despite having played for solid territory earlier on, but how do you make this into a strategic idea?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I have a similar thought, hyperpape.

When I go for lots of real territory early on, usually the opponent has more outside influence and therefore, I'd be the one playing lightly later.

If I want to be able to attack strongly later, I should start out by sacrificing some early territory in order to have strong groups. Then, I am free to attack later.

If I have more solid territory and also have more power to attack... I am not playing against an equally strong opponent.

_________________
be immersed

I think that, even more so than usual, this style of play involves superb timing. Take a look at move 55 in this game:



Kitani makes a deep invasion right before Go is able to solidify his area of influence, and he plays lightly enough that he is able to counter the profit Go gets from attacking.

The OP uses territory in an interesting way. In the traditional perspective (here) it's the player who foregoes territory in favor of thickness, who can later attack the opponent's positions. But when territory is taken in a solid way, giving the opponent wide spheres of influences as a result, he can invade without having to care about the safety of his groups.

Territory equals eyespace. Real territory, that is.

Myself I wanted (and still want) to develop a style where I built thick positions and then reducing what the opponent thought was his territory, winning in the endgame. The example pro here seemed to be Otake Hideo. From my personal page at SL you can find experiments with "playing like Otake".

Interesting, I replayed some games by him but never really thought of him as playing for thickness. I must have another look.

Another player fitting this description is Takagawa,
I've replayed quite a few of his gams and generally got this nice feeling "ah, I (think I) understand what is going on here"

I have just started looking at his games recently and get a similar feeling. I think they might be good for training myself in "reasonableness", if that's a thing.

_________________
Confucius in the Analects says "even playing go is better than eating chips in front of tv all day." -- kivi

Jeromie, I think I would call that example by Kitani an invasion, not an attack. Because the bottom left White group is not particularly thick, Kitani gets what looks like a reasonable trade. But I still wouldn't call it an attack--it fits more with the idea that if your own territory is very solid, you can invade without worrying so much about it being trashed as a result.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I agree that it's an invasion (and that's what I called it in the post. ) I see a deep invasion as one kind of attack that is enabled by claiming solid territory in the opening. Whether or not you can make a direct attack on an opponent's weak group is just as dependent on the opponent's style of play as one's own.

There is a book by Hane Naoki which might be suitable for you.

I am on a hiatus of sorts, but when I come back Takagawa and Yi are the two players I would be studying as well.