Defensive or Attacking Player

   I was wondering if the style of chess you play will have an impact on the opening you play? As I play more games, I feel a lot less stressed, when I play a defensive style of game. I'm still terrible, but I was wondering as I explore openings, if there is a particular group of openings for more defensive closed style of players? And I'm sure this question has been posed a hundred or more times in the past. I just feel that I need to be sure that the openings I'm looking at fit my style of play moving forward. Thanks in advance for any insight, advice, etc.

Particular group - d4 openings like london, Catalan.

Just play whatever you want unless it's otb

My main opening is the "blunder everything and resign gambit". I have a 100% lose rate with it so I'm working on some of the lines 

Yes, your "style," or preferred ways to play, quite clearly impacts the openings of your choice. Take for example Anatoly Karpov, the former World Champion. He was known as a positional god and was the *one of the* kings of more passive, defensive positions. He played the Caro-Kann as black, which you should recognize as a more calm and "positional." As white, against the King's Indian Defense, he would usually play the Saemisch Variation, securing a strong center and guaranteeing a lasting advantage that he would in many cases slowly build and eventually capitalize on. 

On the contrary, someone like his rival Garry Kasparov, a player known much more for his dynamism, aggressiveness, and spice, had a much different opening choice. As black he played the KID, a dynamic and sharp counterattacking response to 1. d4 where black waits to strike back at the center and launch an attack. 

If you're asking for some openings for your more closed, defensive style, here are a few I would suggest. For white, 1. d4 would be the first that comes to mind, with e4 usually being more open. The QGD Exchange Variation or Catalan may be good fits for you. As black, the Caro-Kann should definitely be a top contender against 1. e4, ad the QGD against 1. d4 to start.

If you enjoy closed positions, against d4 pretty much any benoni/king's indian would be good.

Against e4, you should try the french defense. Usually with Nf6, to provoke them into playing e5.

As white, you could try the ruy lopez (assuming you don't play the english). Italian isn't very closed.

Against sicilian you could try the Moscow/Rossolimo or the closed sicilian. Grand prix attack is actually fairly closed if you know the lines.

Against the french, advance variation, and exchange against caro-kann with 4.c3 if you don't wish to play the advance.

Scandinavian, play 2.Nc3.

There isn't a closed way to play against Pirc/Modern. Not one that attempts for an advantage, at least.

I play the same opening too, what a coincidence!

that question seems vague but ill say attacking

Aggressively defensive, if that makes sense 

as the old kings would say "the best defense is a good offense"

wow, same for me!

This opening just comes so naturally to me, i recommend this to everyone 

I'm more of a defensive person but If I see a chance to to prime damage then full on attack.

I guess you can use the london as a defensive opening but when I play with it, I usually attack just like in the colle zuck.  It's fairly easy using the london as an attacking system.

yeah "refuting the colle zukertort" 

harder 😐😐

Also, when talking about chess styles/personalities I think positional and tactical are used more often than defensive and attacking. Because for example there is such thing as a positional attacker. Defensive and attacking don't describe a player as much as tactical and positional.

On a side note, I think you can't fit any player into the stiff mold of "positional", "tactical", "defensive", or "aggresive". Everyone is unique. That's why I strongly dislike personality quizzes(not just chess, but in general). I don't who was dumb enough to come up with a 20 question quiz that has some magical formula that tells you if have an A,B,C, or D personality type. And then even worse than that, people will tell you your strength and weaknesses based on your personality and tell what you can do and what you can't. Instead of the magic quiz showing you who you are, its putting you in a box and its telling you what you should be. 

Kinda got a little philosophical there but I just thought why I'd share why I don't like personality quizzes even though that's kinda off topic.

Also, as I've said before, beginner(probably 100-2000 elo) players don't necessarily have personality yet when it comes to chess. One example to prove this is to look at the most popular videos of eric rosen. Chess influencers usually target the beginner audience because they can teach them easier and chess beginners are probably the ones who constantly are clicking on chess videos before finishing others because they are so excited. So, Eric Rosen makes videos such as "Win in 5 moves with this InSaNe GAMBIT!" or "Check out this insane trap." In the videos, titled as such, Eric Rosen will go over some dubious gambit and talk about how exciting it is to play sacrificing, attacking chess. Then, you'll see most beginners going around talking about how they’re are DEFINITELY a tactical player only to realize a month later that they enjoy positional chess more because they saw a video on ChessNetwork talking about the positional concepts of chess.

All in All, my point is that beginner chess players don't have a personality yet and are mostly reflecting what they see in others. It's like if people were trying to figure out the personality of their infant. That would be hilarious, all the babies are trying to do at that point in life is learning how to eat, how to cry, and how to move their fingers. Similarly, a beginner chess player is still trying to not blunder a piece every 5 moves. Now you see why I think trying to assign a beginner chess player a personality is quite ridiculous.

I don't think you understand the word "Refuted" as a chess term.

Then, you'll see most beginners going around talking about how they’re are DEFINITELY a tactical player only to realize a month later that they enjoy positional chess more because they saw a video on ChessNetwork talking about the positional concepts of chess.

this is factually incorrect, because anybody who constantly touts eric rosen's garbage won't ever learn positional chess, because they would be too busy studying the latest opening theory and wondering why they can't break 1200 when they have a 2000 online rating.

lol, that's funny but you have to understand how Naive and Innocent beginner players are. When I played a couple games of chess 5 years ago and then quit I remember looking up "How to checkmate in four moves" and I was thinking that once I learned this I would win every chess game. Similarly, beginners are little, innocent sheep out in the wild that get preyed on by wolfs such as "Gambit that wins in 6 moves!" So at-least the beginners I'm referring to aren't "constantly touting eric rosen's garbage" they're just naive.

When you’re 1300-1400 and get caught up in a fad that’s been dead for a solid year, then yes, you are touting his garbage. Garbage because everybody knows that Eric Rosen does not play that stuff in his classical games.