What questions should I ask myself to determine my playing style.

The whole idea I have here about one's playing style is basically to decide which opening should I study first. But that asks another question too. When you find out your playing style, what opening should you play then? I don't want to study let's say, the italian opening, just because most beginning players do. I really need to make sure what kind of player I am, what if I'm different from "most people" when it comes to chess? :P Right....? lol Anyway, I'm just a beginner so if any of this stuff sounds funny or ridicoulus, sorry. I was just wondering if this was a good question to ask. So I took the chance and posted it here. If your a relatively good chess player, or you think you know the answer to this question, can you help me out? Please? Thank you for any replies. I appreciate it.

Cheers :)

[pfren]

Your style is making lots of mistakes, play classical king pawn openings and follow opening principles, don't learn openings.

[/pfren]

Being serious, why not try out a few and see what you feel comfortable playing?

pfren is an International Master who posts here a lot, by the way. And he's right--weaker players don't have a style, we only have a collection of weaknesses and favorite mistakes.

Thank you all the same, but, in answer to your suggestion, I feel comfortable playing the ruy lopez but from what I hear, that opening is very complicated. 

But I think I have to make one more additional note for any newer comments that I may receive. I just wanted to learn "one" opening. Opening principals, tactics trainer AND chess mentor I will think about (actually I haven't even used tactics trainer or chess mentor yet.........but I will) Yeah so just one opening. Because I'm a beginner, I thought it would be best to focus on just "one" opening (for now). While keeping everything else including opening principles in my mind.

Oh i see......I posted my second comment before i saw your comment lucidish_lux

Can anyone just give me a run down on openings that are really simple??...

There are no openings that are really simple -- chess is a hard game.

What there are is openings that are somewhat more likely to lead the sort of position you should learn first (open positions).

Play 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 as white.

As black, answer 1.e4 with 1...e5. To cut down on all the sharp gambits and stuff, why not go for the Petroff, 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4.

Answer 1.d4 with 1...d5, going for the Tarrasch, 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 (if 4.cxd5, then 4...exd5).

Italian game is quite simple (well as simple as anything in chess is).

Idea is to control the centre, hopefully build up a pawn centre with d4 and e4, aim the bishop at blacks weak point of f7 etc. Black wants to play d5 to strike at white's centre and gain space.

Ruy is as good as any, probably better than most actually. Yes, it's complicated, but it's also somewhat straightforward, at least at the beginning. Moves have a concrete purpose that's easy to understand, and there aren't a whole ton of move-order tricks like in, say, Sicilian. It'll teach you a lot about chess and give you rich positions with many possible plans.

If you're intent on learning an opening, you can do a lot worse than the Ruy Lopez, from white and black side both.

Edit: Scott is right, Italian would be good too. I just prefer the Ruy myself.

If you shake hands after a loss and say "good game," you're a wimp.

If you spray the pieces across the floor when you know you're going to lose, you're an asshole.

I'm pretty sure those are the only two styles we see in modern play.

What discipline or skill do you have a style before you learn the basics?

Ok, so you just want an opening you can stick with as you learn the game.  Many beginners are taught the bishop's opening and queen's gambit declined.  These are good, but what if your opponent plays something else?  Or an opening that has no name?  You may learn some moves in the Ruy Lopez, but will you play it as white and black?  What if your opponent goes into a different variation?  i.e. it's impossible to just learn 1 opening and get to play it all the time.  (Well, you can become a system player and IMO stunt your chess growth.  King's indian attack, colle, stonewalls this stuff).

So really picking an opening is not of great concern for a new player.  Learning the opening principals, solving tactical puzzles, and most importantly playing a lot of games to get a general feel for chess comes first.  After a game check it against an opening database to see who left book first and what moves are normally played.  Over time you'll build an opening repertoire.

>So really picking an opening is not of great concern for a new player.<

Not a concern for a REALLY new player. As in, someone playing for fun at home with his or her fellow 8 year olds.

If you go to a tournament, at any level or any venue, you need some openings, or you will lose every game quickly. I know it's vogue to tell new players "don't worry about the openings, learn tactics and endgames" but if you don't know a few of them, you get smacked right out of the box...and those same people who gave you that crummy advice happily collect the point off of you.

TMB

If you're going to tournaments you're not a new player.

If you go to a tournament as a sub 1000 player then you're going to lose no matter what   I've met a few very new players and never beat them because of the opening.  I beat them because they blunder pieces.

If he's not actually a beginner as he says, then sure, pick out an opening and learn it the way I said.  It may be in vogue to give this advice about tactics and endgames... but I've always believed it and am probably personally bias as I've never read an opening book or set out to learn any opening in particular other than the method I describe here (basically building a repertoire one move at a time over the course of many games).

New players go to tournaments all the time, in the scholastic arena. The piece blunders of which you speak are largely because they don't know any openings.

Despite writers like Silman and Pandolfini preaching "don't worry about openings" I notice that opening books are still the vast majority of chess books and continue to sell like hotcakes. Bet the last book you bought was an opening one :)

No. No connection at all.

You wont blunder for however many moves your opponent makes in your known line, but if your tactics are bad, you'll blunder eventually. What difference does it make if it's after 10 moves or 15?

"Bet the last book you bought was an opening one :)"

Read his post.

As a new player I'd avoid the Ruy Lopez. It's really heavily analysed and so you'll get little opportunity to deviate from book lines with any sort of advantage at your (or my :0)) level and risk just seeing the same old stuff for 10-15 moves before you get to use what really matters at this stage... Tactics :0) becoming tactically astute now is the key to improvement. Sure learn a few book openings to 6/7 moves in so you're not blown away from the start, but focus more on your tactical ability for now. As white, learn the first few typical opening moves for kings pawn games - four knights, Italian game, maybe a little of the French/open Sicilian although you'll meet those two far less than 1...e5, 2...Nc6 at this level. As black, learn the typical responses to the fried liver attack (a lot of people play it here...), the scotch and yes, the Ruy Lopez as well as the queens gambit declined. That should give you a solid start and everything else from there, well, it'll add to you experience :0)

>No. No connection at all.<

Hmm, unbridled certainty. Not much you can knock your head against here.