How do you figure out what type of player you are in your chess infancy?  Do you study the tactics? Lasker, etc Or do you go unorthodox? Waitzkin,etc. I feel like I am being overwhelmed in info,(in a good way of course) just want to improve my game. Any questions I should ask myself, or could someone look at my archives and give some insight. Thank you in advance for all help.

Although I am not a very experienced player at all, I would like to ask you to simply be yourself and do what you feel comfortable with (as long as it is your best possible). I've never heard of these "chess types," all except for the "good type" and the "bad type," and with practice, I'm sure you will be a good type. Chess is about having fun (unless your making money off of it). Just play and you'll find yourself along the way. Play and play a lot.

~aeppel 

I suggest you stop thinking about what kind of player you are.

 

Just study tactics and master games and try to find the best move...style really has very little importance.

There are several ways to discern your style. First, in some positions there are multiple equally-good moves--which did you choose? Second, when you study master games are you better at guessing the moves of Tal or Karpov? Third, after you've studied all the major areas of chess--tactics, strategy, endgames, and openings--which one(s) do you like studying the most... and which ones do you dread?

At the "infancy" point of your chess career, determining your style is not too important. Your goal is to build basic competency--the same way an elementary schooler is expected to pass English, Math, PE, etc. before specializing in something. As time goes on you will gradually discover your own unique style.  :)

Your chess style is what comes natural to you, which stems from your personality. Ask yourself what kind of person you in real life and let that be your guide. Then master the tactics and strategy to suit that part of you.

And yes, study tactics! I love endgames but you gotta see forks, skewers, pins, mates, discoveries, etc. to have a chance in this game.

I wouldn't worry too much about developing a style at this point in your game.  A style of play is something you'll grow into naturally as your knowledge and experience with chess fundamentals increases. 

I've always felt that a player's style is based in large part on the type of positions in which he (or she) is most comfortable and least comfortable.  As you gain experience and get many, many games under your belt you'll start to notice that there are some types of games or positions in which you feel right at home; and by that I mean you'll feel like you can "see" the board with clarity and you'll have an intuitive understanding of key themes as well as strategic goals.  When you've played enough chess to recognize those comfortable positions you naturally start to play the kind of chess that allows you to reach your particular zone of comfort.  It's this process that ultimately gives birth to your "style".

Good luck and enjoy the journey!

-Gonnosuke

Chess study resolves around multiple areas and it can get very overwhelming with the amount of things that you might need to look it. For example, openings, endgames, tactics, and the ability to analyze a  given position (both pros and cons of a position).

 Focus on learning endgames since there is usually fewer pieces on the board and makes the decisions less complicated. Try to practice the more common endings until you feel you have understood them well enough then try to learn tactics by getting a book that deals with tactical themes and gives you several examples of a specific theme so that when they occur in one of your games you might recognize the pattern and spring it on your opponent.

 Good luck. 

I think that the most realistic answer is that in anyone's 'chess infancy' we are all the same type of player: "weak". Masters are masters because they have mastered all aspects of the game. Even though people say things like "Tal was a tactical player whereas Petrosian was a positional player," the fact is that Petrosian was capable of playing tactically sound games and Tal understood positional play. The difference, as others here have alluded to, is a matter of preference for certain types of positions.

As a beginner - i.e., in one's "chess infancy" - it is important to learn about all aspects of the game, because beginners rarely have a sound understanding of any of them. I'm not a beginner, but I know that all aspects of my game could certainly use lots of improvement. For someone who knows even less about the game than I do, I don't think it's very productive for them to worry about what sort of "style" they have. Beginners need to focus on things like learning basic opening principles, recognizing threats, not hanging pieces, and spotting basic tactics like forks, pins, and skewers. Once you have obtained a Master title you can start talking about your "style" (and that goes for me too - like I say, I know that all aspects of my play need improvement).