"The Chessplayer's Style" 

I suggest a method of determining a player's style according to a model which uses primary and secondary function. Fischer would be a positional player with tactics as secondary function (or help function). Spassky would have tactics as primary function and the positional as secondary. Botvinnik is a strategist with positional play as secondary function. Kasparov would be primarily concretistic with tactics as secondary. The tacticians and the strategists are the visionary and also the artistic types. The concretists and the positional players belong to the realistic and the more "scientific" types.

Please read the article here: 

http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/playstyle1.htm

Mats

Your idea fascinates me.  Please keep me updated.

I see you have drawn perpendicular axes.  Does that not suggest a field in which you could plot points at relative distances from the center or from the extremes?  I believe it is your intention to identify which quadrant of such a graph a given player will fall in to.

Correct me if I am wrong.  You identified Petrosian as the extreme Strategist, Kasparov as the extreme Tactician, Botvinnik as the extreme imaginitive positional thinker and Spassky as the extreme Concreteist.

It will be a real challenge to locate Tal early in his career compared to later in his career, in light of the transformation he made.

I would seriously consider giving up Jung if I were you.

Whereas in some extremely rare cases the Myers-Briggs type indicator might help an individual on a road of personal growth by discovering some hitherto unknown personal aspects, I find it hard to believe that one's insight of his profile as a chessplayer makes any difference in any direction.

ok, its a little silly, but actually its a little interesting at the same time.

I think I am somewhat like a positional/tactical player, much like petrosian...and we both seem to like the QGA :) I think certain styles tend to have greatest strength/problems against other styles...

But I tihnk its a little more complicated than some 2 dimensional thing.

 a little? 

 but then I can say I am a much superior secondary tactician than you are. 

I feel like all of these words MIGHT just mean exactly the same thing. i.e. Positional, strategy, tactical...

I guess you're type O

too many here are AB normal

What about Toroidal? Or if someone isn't simply connected then things get pretty interesting in the analysis of that system =/