Chess Styles in depth

Thank you for the test ChaturangaBon ! My result of the test is Champion. However, in the past I got Romantic and Genius. I most identify with Romantic, because I am inconsistant and either play positionally, or very sharp, or both, its all based on my mood. I never know how im going to play until im looking at the board or i wake up and decide to play the shabalov attack. Right now my style is being most influenced by Vladimir Kramnik because Im reading "Kramnik: Move by Move". By the end of my training program i plan on being a pure universal player, being able to play every style, playing sharp openings, and positionally. My intuition is my strongpoint. If categlorized, i would be an intuitive player. My weakpoint is my calculating. I dont spend more than 5 minutes per move, on average I spend about less than 2 minutes (probably even less than even 1 minute because i play alot of rapids).

All the games posted on my personal forum, including the accounts LandyPJY, and andrewjeselson3, are game examples showing the potential of my style.

Well then you're doing it wrong. Unless you're the next Viswanathan Anand.

I play quick because impatient, and nerves, anxiety, passion. Some days i will play like a machine and take long, but regularly i play fast and see tactics quick, even 10 moves deep. as long as there are few candidate moves, like forcing moves. Sometimes it doesnt have to be forcing. one time i calculated 3 branches 15 moves deep, qith a queen sac, it was unsound, but i won.

But to get to the level where you intuitively know what the best candidate moves are, you need to invest huge amounts of time in studying/playing. Intuition is developed by getting into the habit of playing good moves (and taking as much time as is needed to find them) rather than getting into the habit of playing bad moves quickly. As an example, look how many people on this site have played thousands and thousands of blitz/bullet games with no significant improvement.

Alternatively, how many of the top chess players in the world only played blitz and didn't play classical chess? And yet almost all the top blitz players are also top classical time control players.

I study at every day, often times 8 hours, sometimes i just play chess all day to practice what ive learned. every day is chess for me.

That's great! I guess what I'm trying to say is don't get too caught up on figuring out whether you're intuitive/calculating/positional whatever. There's only one adjective you should aim to be able to describe your play as and that's "good" :P

My play is plastic, always changing, If im confident and angry, im tactical and dynamic, if im cautious and somewhat anxious, im more positional, if im feeling normal, im more logical and strategic. Always intuitive though (intuition from patterns and memory, thousands of games and puzzles). Dont calculate much, only if needed at critical moments. I understand. The point im trying to make is that style is all mood, how you were raised or if you had a good life, personality, thinking process. Like Tal said about Petrosian, Petrosian had a hard life, so his style was rock hard.

Did you know that this thread is referenced in a Gizmodo article? http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-chess-has-changed-over-the-last-150-years-1707692642

really? hahaha. well, i am lucky i guess. my assertations i made back then werent 100% accurate, but this subject and the evolution of chess is amazing. :D thanks for showing me, i hope to continue to contribute to this topic and i hope the other amazing people who commented on this or are involved in other ways continue to contribute to this topic.

But how to identify that whats my playing style?

^everything i said is nonsense, style doesnt exist. play all moves

"Building a repertoire ... we will take the idealized situation of someone starting from square one ... The first step is to think about your personal style. Do you prefer open, tactical positions or closed, strategic positions? Does an attack on your king make you nervous, or are you happy so long as you have a counter-attack? Do you prefer main lines, or something slightly offbeat? Next, look at the various openings available, and see which ones fit in with your personal style. ..." - GM John Nunn (1998)

"You don't have to have a style." - Ellen DeGeneres

I love this topic and thank you Andrew Jeselson for your efforts in this post. We all want to know what kind of players we are, so that we might try to play to our strengths through opening selection, etc. I really wish there was a definitive an reliable way to answer these questions about style.

Nonetheless, I suspect that trying to come up with a stable set of styles is problematic at best. In psychology, most personality tests are now considered to be bogus. The Myers-Briggs scale is a joke. You may as well do astrology. The evidence for it tracking anything significant is very thin indeed. The most well-supported personality test is the Big Five, but this doesn't give a set of fixed types. Rather, it rates a person on a sliding scale in five different personality dimensions. Something analogous to this in chess would be more promising.

The first thing to note when it comes to chess styles is the incredibly different sets of categories the various authors have come up with. The evolution of chess style post has 8 different styles, while the test your chess personality has 15-20. Another source is Lars Bo Hansen's books, but he just has four types. If there are a set of stable style types, it looks like we don't have the first clue as to which actually track anything real in player's tendencies. Until we see a more scientific approach to this, I am afraid that we are just doing chess astrology. "I am a Gemini player and you are a Libra player..."

@pawnstormpossie labeling style isnt important! haha. i made this post when i was super naive. now im still naive but on a lesser scale.  good input!  SUBJECTIVITY!!!

Thanks @chronotis . i 100% agree. myers briggs is meaningless. just something that entertains, like horoscope.