Chess Styles

I think I would fall under the style category of idiot. I spend a lot of time calculating a move, then I decide it's bad so I make one that I haven't calculated at all. Though when I do make the move that I calculated out, I think I would be more of a logical player. Although since I am not capable of any good calculations, the only way to have a slight chance of winning is if I make weird moves that make sense only to me (tricky player category).

It would definitely be cool if you had a sort of quiz that could tell what type player you are.

I was too suprised not to see defending or counter-attacking style. But do not take this too serioulsy, everyone is mix of 2 or more this styles, but everyone has one style that are more expresed then the others. If I play boring positional game that ends with draw that does not satisfie me, as I am looking trough whole game a chance to make a sac and combinations. As mentioned before, best players are mix of all this. And I did say where this article is from justa-patzer.

I don't think consideration of stylistic differences between players means as much at the club level, since tactical ability/avoiding blunders is more important.  It probably takes on more importance as you ascend the ladder of chess skill.

  That being said I have had the experience of losing repeatedly to an attacking player, only to decide to start playing more positional openings against him, the poor guy started losing and I felt really happy.

i would say i belong in the illogical category.

 lol!!!

i like to attack.. attack.. attack. but these past 2 weeks including this current one.. i saw myself making moves that i realize were bad.. only when i pushed the submit button.. not before. i attack with no concerted moves. i go thru the tactical training exercize and pushed for solution when the right moves did not burst through my consciousness in an instant.

i wonder, am i metamorphosing into one style from another? or boredum to the routineness setting in?

perhaps i play too much chess! perhaps the bottom line is just what lawyer08 said.. we all are those styles except that we all are predominantly one or two specific style and the rest just creep in at the opportune time. 

see i even ramble in this post. Lol.

I agree with whoever said this is probably only meaningful at a higher level.  Maybe we all have "styles" but they are probably not relevant to why we lose or win our games at this level?

This is silly but I can say without a doubt that I'm a 100% intuitive player (though my intuition isn't very good).

Intuitive and positional are the only two I can 100 percent say I am not.  I play by intuition when I feel sleepy...lol.  Is that intuition? 

Probably... I almost never calculate, and when I do calculate something in the middlegame (I never, ever calculate in openings, either I'm right or I'm not. I do however try to calculate a bit during endgames) I find that it saps my confidence. There are way too many what ifs for me to be comfortable with my own calculations.

I make moves because they look good and often kick myself after when I get hit with a very simple tactical shot.

Fischer was a practical player.  He tended to play sharp openings - Sicilian and King's Indian - but if given the chance to trade down to a won endgame, he would take it.  Fischer also tended to be a bit more materialistic than some players, grabbing pawns if he couldn't see a drawback.  Elie Agur draws a good portrait of Fischer's style in his book Bobby Fischer: His Approach to Chess.

Spassky in general liked to play classical openings answering 1.e4 with 1...e5 and 1.d4 with 1...d5.  He would seize space in the centre, and develop every last piece before launching into an attack.  When properly motivated, he tended toward the Attacking/Dynamic side, sacing material for the attack.  As he grew older, he became quite peaceable often agreeing to quick draws, and only doing well in tournaments where all the other players were drawing as well.

Kasparov was quite clearly an Attacking/Dynamic player.  He saced pawns far more than any of his contemporaries except perhaps Shirov.  Dvoretsky has argued that Kasparov does not feel comfortable when thrown onto the defensive, and makes his worst mistakes trying to complicate when he should be defending.

Players like Korchnoi and Boris Gulko clearly fit into a counter-attacking style, often playing possum in the hope that their opponent will overextend.  It seems to me that the counter-attacking style is related to hypermodernism - letting your opponent set up a large pawn centre, and then trying to break it up.

this is like reading astrology, people looking at the category and trying to figure out which one they fit the best. I mean most players have their styles dictated by the situation, many factors have to be accounted into it.

Well obviously I'm a mix of all of the above, but as for my main style recently, these are the ones that stand out to me. I am Attacking, Calculating and Intuitive (I use my intuition to find good candidate moves and calculate the crap out of them), Dynamic, and Tricky. I am also Young so I still have a ways to go before I gain a set style.

style? is losing a style? if so, i'm master of this particular style.

I am very Cagey Player, Never tend to attack pieces. Only threating the pieces with Pins , Stewers, And only attack my opponets when the chance arrives at my door step. I like to protect my pieces rather than exchange pieces. I never calculate only play by sense of my mind.( Denfensive Player), Never looking for an inviation at all . Thank You :D

Where is lucky? :P

Positional.

Im an attacker/positional player

I'm probably a Dynamic (dynamic openings) Logical player who sometimes calculate and sometimes use intuition, I'm of course practical and tricky when the game is lost for me or it is going to be draw, I love to sac pawns and exchanges to get the initiative, I always (when I'm not lost or draw is not near) choose plays according to positional rules and I don't care to win a game with a technical solution if it's needed. Does it mean that I'm a young player? 

I think styles of chess should be classificated in Calculation and Intuitive exclusively, do you avoid complications in a normal situation or you accept the challenge? Of course there are other factors which finishes the definition of the style but the main ways of playing are avoiding complications and not avoiding complications, you can like tactical or positional positions but what says what is your style is the way you take decisions in tactical and positional positions. :)