Are you an aggressor or defender?

Correct, I believe there is no style, myself included.

1.e4 , like 1.d4 (and any first move) contains the possibility to turn into any type of game.  From a wild Sicilian to an early endgame out of the Berlin defense, and every thing in between.  All are possible position types stemming from 1.e4

It's incorrect to believe that opening choice will dictate so clearly the nature of the game.  If one player wants an aggressive wild game while the other wants a quiet game they often have to meet somewhere in the middle.  It takes 2 players to create a position.

The 1.e4 as attack vs 1.d4 as positional is an oversimplification for beginners who don't know enough about the game to handle a more detailed answer, so you can see how this argument doesn't convince me.

Again it takes two players to create a position.  This is an oversimplification.  I've never heard of playing a philidor set up as white, it sounds like something a beginner might try.

A successful result depends on the relative level of opposition, not the style.  Not only are these numbers baseless, the concept is wrong all together.

Actually you have it backwards, it's more difficult to play defense because of the accuracy involved.  In defense all possible lines must be safe for you, in attack only one possible line must work.  Attacks often flow naturally while defense can be grueling both in practical terms and psychologically.

My preferred method of playing you would likely label as a defensive style (although I would disagree).  And I can say for sure it takes a lot of energy and is anything but relaxing.  In fact a properly played chess game is anything but relaxing (against good opposition anyway). 

Unfortunately for your argument, ease of play has nothing to do with style.

None of your arguments support the idea that amateurs have a style of play.  I completely disagree on every one of your points trying to argue otherwise.

I forgot to mention I was talking about U2000 tournaments. I am talking about what I know, over 2000 I have not investigated properly yet.

As I said, 1.e4 FOR ATTACK (means the player wants to attack) & Phillidor FOR DEFENCE(means the player wants to defend). Who is talking about ALL POSSIBILITIES for a certain character of battle from an opening? I am talking about PLAYER`S CHOICE. So if a player wants to play defensive the last thing he wants is to play Sicilian defence and 1.e4 FOR ATTACK. I am talking about defending with MINIMUM risk, I think you missed that.

Even when playing 1.e4 for attack, the 2nd player can create a game where there is no opportunity to attack.  I suggest you look up the berlin defense out of the ruy as a prime example.  Notice the great attacking player Kasparov failed to attack with 1.e4 in his title match against Kramnik who used the Berlin.

Similarly I play 1.e4 and when I face 1...c5 although my opponent has played the sicilian, perhaps hoping for a sharp dragon with mutual attacks, I can answer with 2.Nc3 or 2.e3 (and I often do) to steer the game away from any immediate attacks.

Playing a philidor set-up (for defense) as a system against any of white's moves being extremely amateurish aside, I must stress that openings from move 1 or 2 are not aggressive or defensive.  Only the most rank beginners who have no other way to conceptualize the game would think this way about an opening.  Openings involve creating and playing for advantages.

I don't think I missed anything about your argument.  I understand it but disagree.  In fact I'm a bit shocked at how well you're able to play (based off of your rating) vs such a simplistic view of chess.

I don't think you've understood what I've suggested in my last few posts.  I think you like your own point of view, and aren't making an effort to understand what I'm saying.

I said.....................If one wants to play defensive with minimum risk with strategy based on waiting for opponent`s mistakes rather than going for advantages one self(theoretically playing for a draw) one CAN pick an opening such as Phillidor. If one wants to play aggressive one CAN pick Sicilian with promises the most aggressive options.

You:".. I must stress that openings from move 1 or 2 are not aggressive or defensive.  "- Again you are talking about possibilities. I am talking about what PLAYER HAS IN MIND WHEN HE SITS DOWN AT THE BOARD AND LUNCHES A CERTAIN OPENING! DOES HE HAVE IN MIND TO PLAY DEFENSIVE OR ATTACKING?

You:"..Even when playing 1.e4 for attack, the 2nd player can create a game where there is no opportunity to attack. " -Exactly. And that 2nd player is the defender. And that`s where his strategy comes in, he will allow the attacker(player 1) to overpush, to overpush is so easy under 2000. The assessment of these players is falling a part all the time and they can`t focus on doing several things(attention distribution skill). I was U2000 fide player a couple of month ago now I am 2100. And if player1 does not overpush comes end game, and if that is survived a draw comes.

If player one decides he wants an attack before he sits down at the board, it doesn't mean he will get it, especially if he follows standard openings like the sicilian.  If a player wants to defend passively then you're right, there's nothing stopping them from doing so.  I don't think anyone decides if they will play defense or offence before they start the game, not even many beginners.

It may be a language barrier and I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.  You're asking the people who read your post if they decide to attack before they start a game or if they decide to defend before they start a game?  If you are asking that, it sounds odd to me because I don't do either and I don't think many people play chess this way.  If you're asking something else let me know.

No, come on, if you don`t see the difference between Petrosian and Tal and the amont of draws and decisive results when compairing the two styles even the top skill of english will not make you understand.

You:"If player one decides he wants an attack before he sits down at the board, it doesn't mean he will get it, especially if he follows standard openings like the sicilian.  If a player wants to defend passively then you're right, there's nothing stopping them from doing so." - IF the aggressor is WHITE he can create an attacking position against the defender.

Ah, ok I get it now. He made sense after all :) ..and I began to lose faith in humanity...

Anthony does not agree that there is a connection between a positional style with being defensive/playing defensive and that tactical style has anything to do with being aggressive/playing aggressive.

"I think you mean "tactical" or "positional." - That was confusing, can be misunderstood that you agree with the statement.

I always played aggressive and decpited defensive style, finding it boring and chicken. Today I decided to play 9 games emulating a 9 round tournament in "the passive style" to see how the total score would come out. I have not had so much fun playing chess in YEARS!  So relaxing and fun watching opponent kill him self!!!  

Depends  on the situation.

I'd say "Of course I strive to make the very best move possible in the position, offensive or defensive does not matter" only that is a blatant lie. I suck at attacking. From time to time I have played exciting attacking games, but those are the exception, and very, very rarely involve speculative sacrifices and practically never gambit openings (with the exception of the Queen's Gambit, which by the way I love accepting and holding onto as black if white plays "impotent" moves such as a3 while the pawn is still ripe for the taking). Usually I'm on the defending side on such an attack, and I'm not half bad at that - I often end up keeping at least some of what my opponent sacrificed, even if it's only a pawn, then trade down into a (hopefully) won endgame.

So am I an aggressor or a defender? A defender, but that's not a question of style, it's simply in indicator as to where my weaknesses are.

(Well, of course there's two ways to put it: "Attacking is my weakness" or "Defending and endgames are my strengths" basically mean the same thing. One of them just sounds more appropriate given my meager chess skills.)

Estragon, this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01te5gp9JD0

I am pure attack. I play the king's gambit, and try to exchange pieces but keep my queen on the board for as long as possible. I hate passive pawn pushes, I prefer to simply capture at every opportunity.

Yeah... and for long games you have no pationce, Deranged.

Anyway folx, it`s like this.. Positional player likes to watch opponent kill him self while tactical wants to kill opponent him self. Which is more fun?

Positional chess is still aggressive and tries to actively win the game -- but does so without going for a mating attack or winning material.  You know the games where players resign but the pieces are the same for both players?  A positional style can be just as aggressive.

No good style sits back and waits for an opponent to kill themselves.  I think very few people ever play like this except for fun in a blitz game or something.  I think you  misunderstand what positional chess is.

However, even with the most positional players, at some point there has to be tactics, such as a mating attack or gaining material. It is not possible to win a game on position alone, unless your opponent gets so depressed that they resign. (In which case it's really psychology rather than position.)

Between players of high enough skill, they resign because they know from that point the win is easy, even though material is equal.  Saying it's just psychology is like saying resigning a Q+K vs K position is psychology.  Positional players work hard at the board to grind you to dust and it can be every bit as aggressive minded as an outright attack.

I am not sure what happened to honda's last post ?

If grandmasters resign in position where material is apparently equal, that is because they have foreseen a winning tactics that cannot be avoided. Correct me if I am wrong, but I really don't think that even GMs resign games on purely positional considerations such as "I don't have control over d5 square" or "my c-pawn is backward."

Strange.