Types of Players

Alright, BM(Beer Master) or is it WM(Wannabe Master) ?

Haha!

You have a point. But it still falls into a certain category of playing. Your answer is simplified even though it goes straight to the point, it still doesn't help many to find their playing style so they may one day reach the "Good Player" if you will.

So you do agree that there is a type of player called "Good Player"?

That's all that Till was saying - he didn't say anything about helping people find their playing style and improve.

It's debatable, macer75. I mean, it's almost like finding the perfect player. And no one has a perfect playing style. There may be and may have been players who came close.

I'm not necessarily saying there is such a player called the Good Player, but I just don't think it's impossible to become a player who uses all the styles to be an excellent player. I do think it's extremely difficult to reach that style because there are many contradictions with that play-style. It might not even exist. Who knows ?

With all the styles I named, you can be good players for each play style !

I'd like a second opinion, but I'd say active because you have a balanced mixture of offense as well as defense, TheElementalMaster !

Or you can play c3 and earn a knight back with a constant attack :P

Black seems like the Passive-Aggressive player. White seems like just an Active player. I don't see any tendencies from White other than they play like an Active Player.

I may not be the brightest buld in the box but I can still see :)

TheElementalMaster, would you like an explanation as to why these are the play-styles I chose? Or can you see it yourself ?

Just read my main post, and you'll see how it makes sense !

I think that, at best, these 'styles' are based on and probably mostly applicable to 'lower level' players.

Tal was an aggressive player, but I don't think he suffered from the weaknesses you say come along with being an aggressive player.

I saw a similar thread several months ago where some higher rated players were saying they felt playing style is something that develops and does not develop until well into your chess growth. I tend to agree with this. 

If someone falls into one of these 'styles' you listed, then they are just not a good player. This is probably the reason for Till_98's comment about a fifth type of player.

So I am probably not a good player (True). My little brother does not fall under ANY of those catagories (True). Logically kleelof's right! Wow, what a philosipher!

And my little brother is good.

Kleelof said that Good Players do not fall under any of the four categories. That is not the same as saying that anyone who doesn't fall under one of the four categories is a Good Player.

Is ther any other way to be right?

There is always the wasted player who is too wasted to drive and instead playes chess.

But it's still true that my little brother is good :)

Faulty logic (no offense) can sometimes lead to correct conclusions, or seemingly prove/ reaffirm them. I believe you.

I don't take offense from factual posts.

Well... I wouldn't exactly say that was factual, but anyway...

@ OP: What style do you consider yourself to be?