neither...I can hardly play chess let alone classify myself into a certain style of play
Do you consider yourself a tactical or a positional player?
Sort:
Tactical.
I'm an universal player, I do everything equally bad.
Positional not because I'm good at playing positionally but because I'm bad a tactics.
whichever I don't know but I never forget to hang a piece.
I make one move threats, its about as positional and tactical as it gets for me.
Tactical. Definitely tactical. I'm rather decent at positional play, but tactics are my home ground. (That's why I NEVER play 1.d4)
Feb 17, 2018
0
#9
I just follow Garry Kasparov’s teachings, find the best move, play the best move, although it doesn’t always work out like that, I don’t think we can classify ourselves into styles until we’re at least over the 2000 level, we can say what we like to play, but we make too many mistakes to have a style of play.
Feb 17, 2018
0
#10
I'm both. I make moves that are tactically bad and give me bad positions.
Pulpofeira wrote:
I'm an universal player, I do everything equally bad.
MitSud wrote:
I just follow Garry Kasparov’s teachings, find the best move, play the best move, although it doesn’t always work out like that, I don’t think we can classify ourselves into styles until we’re at least over the 2000 level, we can say what we like to play, but we make too many mistakes to have a style of play.
Sometimes there is NO best move. There is simply a number of plausibilities all with roughly equal merit. What do you do then?
MGleason wrote:
I'm both. I make moves that are tactically bad and give me bad positions.
yes this is my approach too although I have noticed a tendency of late to actually try to evaluate the resultant positions 
CoffeeAnd420 wrote:
Hmmm...OP's blitz rating is ~300 points higher than his rapid rating. With a 1500 rating, you're not classified as any type of player yet. None of us have a "style" until we're rated about ~2000+. Titled players laugh at players rated below that classifying themselves as either positional or tactical.
OP has a lot of work to do.
Actually from what I've heard it's the opposite Intermediate level players tend to be more specialized than Masters because Masters can't afford to be only good at one thing.
Not sure sometimes one sometimes another
In that third game, 23. Bxf6 is slightly suboptimal.
Try 23. Rf2. This quiet moves comes with tempo... now fxe5 wins the whole rook, since black cannot unpin his rook with tempo (Rxf1+). He has only one defence as far as I can see, that's e3, driving the rook back to f1, but this pawn is no longer protected by the bishop and is an easy capture very shortly, and also it can no longer break open the centre with exd3. This quiet 23. Rf2 wins an extra pawn and results in a better pawn structure for white. I'm actually quite pleased to find that move, it's subtle. 23. Bxf6 is obviously winning too, but I like to play the best move.
Oh wait, you were black and got lucky. I assumed you were white and won from that position. Oh well, I still found a better move for white, and I'd have won that position easily.
Feb 18, 2018
0
#18
Chess is a combination of both. 'Tactics flow from a superior position'.
Last few games of mine. I usually play quiet 1.d4 openings but decided to experiment with 1.e4 with good results.