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

Well, it's good to know that at least HERE, in this forum, is a collection of seasoned players who have all done well without resorting to something as useless as the rote memorization of opening moves.

Nope, this is a place where just good old solid opening moves, an eagle eye for tactics, and a fab endgame technique has taken everyone to where they want to be. Slav Defense? Wasn't that during World War II? 

I suspect that there's a lot of...BULL floating around here, and that most or all of you have SCADS of opening books, and have opening repetoires that you are both proud of and worry over, and when you sit down at a tournament, the first thing on your mind is what OPENING you are going to play and some prayers that your opponent will blunder against it.

Maybe?

My last tourney my idea for facing 1.e4 was literally "I'll play 1...d6 and see what happens"

What happened was I lost to a tactic around move 40 against a player rated 200 points higher than me from an otherwise slightly better position.  (My king was under attack and I was low on time and I missed a tactic and had to resign).

When I faced a Sicilian I didn't want to bother with book (I don't know openings well anyway) so I played an early Nxc6 and just went from there.  I won a favorable rook endgame vs opponent rated +100 me.

Only 1 game did I go into book more than 6 or so moves and that's because the method I've said before... I've looked up what to do after games 1 move at a time.  He played a philidor's defense and I'm very comfortable with book-ish moves so that's what I played.  By the way the opening was equal and he lost because he dropped the exchange around move 25.

Most students of the royal game NEVER get past the openings.

This thread (and many, many other threads) attests to that simple fact.

So buy lots of opening books, and with luck you might eventually switch to studying tactics and endgames, and "strategy" (writ large), before you burn out.

Most everyone has lots (and lots) of opening books in their collections.  Myself included.  And most of these books are just collecting dust. 

On balance, your "playing style" is largely irrelevent if your rating is less than USCF 2000.  Please make a note of it. 

Almost!

I am a seasoned player, have been playing for over twenty years, but my first rating was 1440 and I've only been able to get to 1950ish! And I do have 20 or so opening books that I studied way too much, true.

It's just that I've locked them all up since last year, actively try to play new stuff behind the board (although I hardly need to help my opponents, I've really never studied this 1.e4 c5 2.a3 or 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 stuff I've been seeing recently) and in recent weeks I've finally beaten a few 2200+ opponents, something I've never managed before. One in the QGD as black, the other as white in Grunfeld with 5.Bd2, both openings I don't own any books on.

I can't recall ever winning any games straight from opening theory in 20+ years.

If I could do it all again, I'd skip the opening books. Not worth it. It's the difference between me stuck at 1950 and people who get to 2300+, I was the sucker who thought it was cool to know a lot about openings.

I think the original post is typical of so many beginner questions. The beginner asks what to do to accomplish X, then, in the very same breath, proclaims "I will not do anything to accomplish X, I just want X to happen for me."

No.

There's only one way to determine your playing style. Play every conceivable type of position against every conceivable type of opponent. Use ALL of the openings. Go over your games very carefully, noting which positions made you uncomfortable, in which positions you seemed to find relatively good moves easily, etc. Forget what people say about developing a small opening repertoire; they usually mean that advice for 1800+ level players, or for terminal class C or B players. Listen to everyone here telling you your rating is ~1300, therefore you have no style, and you should focus almost all study effort on tactics. Endgame tactics, middlegame tactics, opening tactics. Play any opening that doesn't lose by force; you will quickly identify openings that lead to positions that you do not want to deal with. As you improve, you will begin to calculate your way out of similar positions in openings you are becoming more comfortable with.

You're not going to magically divine your playing style to allow you to choose "only one opening" as you want to do; that's ridiculous.

Is your priority learning one opening, or discovering your style? If it's discovering your style, that will come as part of your improvement. If it's learning one opening, well, pick one and play it. Openings are the easy part. Developing a style takes work. I took the easy way and hit a dead end. I am trying to correct that.

Here's hoping you put in the work.

>My last tourney my idea for facing 1.e4 was literally "I'll play 1...d6 and see what happens"<

Ok. Just a Han Solo wing-it-as-it-comes player, hmm? It's all about the reflexes, and not the study, of course I should have know -- it's so cowboy cool. Sh*t, I don't need no books! Bring it on, patzer, and try to harsh on my d6! 

But odd how absolutely no player of any standing for the past century would say the same thing...maybe they don't....

Aim medium. 

maskedbishop vs waffle, bring it on! Blitz game.

No no, I have several opening books I bought when I got back into tournament play. I think I've gotten something good out of about 2 of the 6 books. My endgame technique has won me probably 6 won games, won me 3 drawn games, and drawn me probably 5 lost ones, and lost me 2 lost ones.. My tactics have won me probably 10 games, and lost me 5. My openings have won me probably 2 and lost me 1. 

My endgame book is on the top of my pile, followed by my pawn structure book, Reassess your Chess, and the Amateur's mind. 

An opening can get you a better position. Without understanding position, it's wasted. A better position can get you better potential tactics. Without a tactical eye, that's wasted too. Tactics can get you more pieces. Without being able to retain those pieces, you just give them back. More pieces can get you checkmate, but if you don't know how to do that, you don't win either.

That's why people start with basic mates, move on to tactics, then positional considerations, and then openings.

If you want to spend time on openings, -go ahead-, just remember to study the other 99% of the game too. Openings are a crucial part of the game--the point everyone's trying to make is that they're not the deciding factor most of the time.

No, it's not good to be that unprepared.  I'm just saying that at my level it can work... not because I'm imagining it but because it's happened to me personally in real games :)

Of course to my benefit I've played and played-over thousands of games.  I've also read Soltis pawn structure book.  So as the game unfolded I can classify the structure and I have a sense for where my pieces belong and in general the types of plans each side will consider.

Yes, new players don't have these things.  But believe me when their opponents leave book early (either because they don't know openings or because they're choosing a different variation) they're going to have to rely on the same sorts of things (general experience, middlegames, tactics, endgames).  And this is why people recommend to begin study in these places.  Openings are sort of the icing on the cake IMO.

Just because you figure out your "style" doesn't mean you will improve as a a player.  I am a fairly aggressive player yet I play solid openings.  Openings don't always reflect back on style.  Btw you could focus on Italian just because alot of new players learn it does not make it bad.  I have a master at my club that plays nothing but the Italian.

>On balance, your "playing style" is largely irrelevent if your rating is less than USCF 2000. <

Yeah we've all heard these. Here's another one I hear a bit: do not play d4 until you are at Expert level.

Like all the rest of these so-called maxims, including "never study openings," it can be tossed as needed. 

I will just react to this in generally. Yes, openings are not important for beginners. I do not know who asked what was the last book you bought, or someone wrote that a beginner loses his pieces, because he does not know openings, and there were such posts. Maybe it was written by the same user, maybe not, I don't care, it does not matter now.

There are a lot of weaker players, who are obsessed with openings. They think that they have a big advantage if they are know a lot of lines, and they will not be in worse position. I had also this period, I tried to learn a lot of openings. (I mean I did not wanted to know a lot of openings at the same time, I just couldn't choose which ones to play against my opponents, who are nowadays 1800-1900 FIDE rated players, but I had this problem for several years.)

But the scenario is this. For beginners, it is useless to learn opening variations. We taught beginners to play chess. What do you think was their biggest problems? Yes, they blundered their pieces all the time. Most of the time, it is enough to attack a piece, and you will won that piece. So it is a very common beginner problem, they are playing two quickly, and they do not think about protection of their pieces, they just play. Also, another big problem for beginners are the endgames. You have to teach them how to give mate with Q+K vs K, R+K vs K, 2B +K vs K, and later on K+N+B vs K. But also, you have to teach them how to reach these positions, so you have to teach the endgame really for them. With the opposition, passed pawns, and all other things.

You do not lose a pieces because you do not know openings. You lose it because you don't check if your oppponent can take it. (beginners mistakes) Openings wont help you to fix it. Yes, they will know that in a certain openings he can place his bishop there, and it will not be taken. But it does not matter. You can attack that bishop at anytime, and beginners will lose the bishop most of the time.

As I know, Capablanca said that every chess player should learn the game from the endgame. I totally agree with it. Endgames teach you general strategies, and after all, you have to be able to use your advantage somehow if you could not give a mate in the middlegame.

Beginners biggest mistakes are hanging pieces and endgames. Openings does not help on it. So you should ignore it. I am not saying you should totally ignore them, if you are playing in FIDE or other tournaments, it is useful to know 1-2 openings. But these openings should be simple. But for beginners, they should totally ignore openings theory, they should only learn the principles.

Oh, and playing style does not exist in the meaning you use it. Playing style is something like whether you like to play more simple, or more complicated positions, for example. But it does not exist in openings.
So for example playing style can mean that you can play both simple and complicated positions well, but you prefer for example the simpler positions. But it does not your style to play rather simpler positions, if you can only play simple positions. Or other example. If you can play both opened and closed positions well, but you prefer for example the open positions, you can say that it is your style to rather play open positions. But open positions are not your style, if you play it because you do not know how to play the closed games. And similar things mean style.

Sure, study the opening, after each game even.  Look to see who left book first and what other moves are usually played.  There, all done :p  For the advanced course look up a few master games that used that opening and play over them.  Fantastic.

After losing a thousand games (as any good player has done) you'll have a solid repertoire and a fair amount of playing experience as well.  If you've been playing over games then even more valuable will be your knowledge of common maneuvers and ideas (e.g. white usually attacks the kingside here).

I don't think you should ignore the opening, but don't make a big deal out of it by buying books on it when you're still new.

What sucks is chess can't be learned all at once, yet we play whole games.  So encountering positions where you feel lost is simply going to happen a lot to new players (but never completely stops no matter how good you get, e.g. even Carlsen and Svilder in their last game were confused at times).

I think this is why people tend to focus on openings.  They want that lost feeling to be held off for at least a few moves.  What it really takes is years of playing and learning.  When you don't feel as lost as you used to you'll see it's mostly because of tactics, middlegames and endgames.

Openings ARE the most exciting part of the game, because when played well, they create the tactical possibilities and endgames scenarios that everyone here is cheering, but seem to feel appear out of nowhere.

As for telling beginners to forget about openings, that's why the average new chess membership lasts about two years. They get tired of handing you points as payment for your sage wisdom to just not lose a piece.

Let me guess...You write opening books?

Oh yes. My monograph on the London sold fairly well...and Sofia Polgar keeps a copy under her pillow :)

Devoting the majority of your time on practicing openings and spending little on tactics in the early stages of your chess career is not the way to study. In fact some very strong players would argue that the best way to study chess is from the endgame backwards.

Learning openings trains the brain to memorise, tactics training teaches the brain pattern recognition. Chess is, for the largest part, pattern recognition. If you don't want to accept that learning nothing but openings is futile to improving your chess rapidly then that's fine, but at least recognise that your opinion flies in the face of most common opinion - not just of those collected within this thread but strong players the world over.

I never said learning nothing but openings is futile.

What I said was beginners should learn openings too. Telling them to ignore them until "later" is doing them a disservice. 

Yes, from DAY ONE...teach your little tyke the Two Knights, that's a good one to start. About 8 moves deep. Why? Because it teaches them to start THINKING about chess as a series of moves with a plan, not just as a response.

And then spend hours on forks, pins, and back rank mates :)

Pandolfini's Traps and Zaps series is an excellent opening primer. Teaches beginners the openings as well as the pitfalls. Links tactics with openings.

Openings are not evil, they are not onerous, and they are not something that you don't try at home. The are integral, fun, and should be incorporated into any chess instruction program at any level.

As for common opinion...the more people that believe in something, the less likely it is true. 

TMB