My playing style

https://www.chess.com/article/view/whats-your-chess-personality the chess personality quiz linked in the article is fairly fun and surprisingly accurate from what I've found.  

Thank you, but I am already familiar with this test, and I also found it very fun. But in my opinion even though I think it is useful, I don't think it is deep enough for me, because it only gives you one situation and my answer really differs time to time. I will usually get "natural", "prodigy" or "mad scientist".

And for some reason this forum created two threads, so I also write here, that if someone decides to fiew some of my games, I don't ask that how well I play, I see that from my rating my self, but rather that is there any pattern in my playing style. Am I a positional player, aggressive, passive and so on. I ask this for self emprovement thats all.

Obviously, it is tough to accurately give such insight into play-style based on only viewing a few games and additionally even the best positional players can become tactical if the position calls for it and vice-versa. However, as far as personality/preferences go (when the position might call for either approach with equal success), it is far tougher to determine.

Of course, I could offer my opinion when I get the chance to glance at a few games

I know what you mean and I agree. This is just for someone who have enough time and interest in their hands. This isn't something that I really need but it would be fun to get opinions from more experienced players.

I spend a decent amount of time glancing through several of your games and I've noticed a fairly balanced distribution of positional and tactical themes. Clearly half a dozen games or so that I looked at is a small sample, but based on this information alone: one might possibly draw some conclusions...

Most obviously, it may just mean that your a well balanced player when it comes to preference. Not everyone is tactical or positional in nature; some players shift equally one way or the other, so it is possible that this is the case. However, some of your space gaining and closed positions, with the pawns locking up, might also suggest that you may be positional in nature. Conversely, there were some nice tactics and I like how you tried to develop your pieces early in the openings (preferences of a tactical player sometimes). 

My surface-level conclusion is "?"  but you very well might be just somewhat naturally balanced. Obviously everyone plays one way or the other if the position on the board calls for it, and of course the low game sample size as noted. 

If you want, maybe we could play some unrated games sometime and perhaps I might gain more insight into your chess idiosyncrasies that way.

Most players at our level don't really have a "style" other than Thud-and-Blunder.

You are too young a player to possess, and/or morph a playing style.

I am playing chess for some 50 years, and I never really had such a thing.

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

"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)

then the bunny can definitely help you

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/what-is-my-style

your style ?

you could call it the art of playing chess without playing.

Seriously, why bother worrying about your "style?" How can it possibly help you to put some kind of label on yourself? Try making fewer mistakes, that's an excellent style!

"... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. If you like to attack and you are not afraid of sacrificing and taking risks choose sharp gambit openings. If you prefer a quiet game, then there are relatively calm openings for you. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

Beginner...

Doesn't follow opening principles.

Misses simple tactics.

Drops material.

Welcome to the eternal club of beginner chess players :-)

Are you the one whose first chess book was Chess Openings Theory and Practice?

You’ve really mellowed - the stock response used to be : your ‘style’ is blundering :-)

":-)" while mocking a beginner?

I am a changed man James...But still a work in progress though :-)

Are you the one who mentioned something you had been hanging onto that happened when you were 5?