How to find out chess style?

The ideal way is by practice; trial and error reveals your personal style with time ... or you could go here instead for your "chess personality"  https://www.chess.com/article/view/whats-your-chess-personality 

Style is the choice you make when you see two different ways to do something, and choose one of them.

For example lets say you have a lasting middlegame initiative which you can use to attack the king or force trades into a endgame that's technically winning, but this is the only move when you'll have the option. Karpov would probably go for the endgame and win it. Kasparov would probably stay in the middlegame and win it.

Lesser players usually don't have a style per se, they have strengths and weaknesses. An inexperienced player would probably attack the king, because endgames are confusing to them in general, and they'd have no idea to win without attacking anyway.

The problem with this is when there is no choice, and an endgame is the only way to win, they'll try to attack anyway, but if you gave Karpov, Petrosian, or any strong GM a winning attack, they're going to attack no matter what their style is.

Your style?

Blundering.

Aww man, I was hoping when you got here you'd post your thing, it's pretty useful for topics like this.

I have placed a self-moritorium on it.  If people are to lazy to search to see if a question has been ask already, i cant save the world.

I might steal it and post it then

By the way, one of the tips is if there's an opponent's piece on your half of the board try to remove it. I'm wondering where you got that from, or if you thought of it yourself. I kinda of like it but I'm not sure but if (no offense) a GM gave it as a tip I'll just trust that it's good and keep it.

"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)

By all means, please do.

I have several lists, if youre intersted.

"... these days all grandmasters know very well that chess isn't only about playing good moves. In the majority of positions, there are a number of possible moves of roughly equal merit, ..." - GM John Nunn (2014)

Since im on the list for "most analytical" let me answer your question in that way.

1. Surprisingly, I got that tip from an Igor Smirnov course.  Say what you want about how cheesy his advertisements are for his stuff, but mixed in, there are some nuggets of truth.

2. Im not smart enough to think of that myself, nor do i have the ego to claim to have thought it up myself.

3. I am not "offended"  I believe you need to be open to criticism/critiques/questions/comments/queries/etc. if you truly want to learn.  If your comment did "offend" me, it would make me a registered democrat, and in tears right now.  

4. Please feel free to use any, and or all of it.  If it helps someone to improve, then that would be a good thing right?

5. If you think any part of it is wrong, please feel free to say so.  Open discussion is part of the learing process, and i certainly DO NOT have all the answers.  That list is a culmination of years of effort, reading, asking, and talking to others.

My life, along with chess is an open book.  

Ok, thanks.

I agree on Smirnov. Cheesy advertisements but also some very good tips.

As for removing the opponent's pieces when there are no forcing moves, I was looking at a few games with that in mind, and, you know, there are exceptions, but it also seemed like a reasonable general rule so I was still undecided.

As for not being smart enough to come up with it yourself... my personal experience of chess is pretty interesting to me, because I would have guessed that after 8 or 10 years, and/or if a person plateaus, they don't really learn anything new... but even now (it's getting close to 20 years for me), it seems like every few years, I have a sort of breakthrough where I realize something... but it's something that "should" be super obvious. I call them my obvious epiphanies. I think my first one was after I had been playing 5 years and rated maybe 1600. I suddenly realized the center was important! Yes yes, books always say this, but I really realized it. Like, I wasn't just following advice, I could really understand it. If no one had told me about it, this would have been the moment I realized it all by myself.

My most recent one was this year. I realized that pawn breaks generate play. Of course I've known this since forever, including the logic behind it... but recently somehow... it's hard to explain. It's like it makes more sense and I'm starting to look for it in ways and positions I didn't.

Anyway, all this to say, I wonder if one day after playing chess for all his life Smirnov realized hey, removing enemy pieces from your side is a good idea. Probably you would have realized it too some day. What's so interesting is it seems to come not form intelligence, but some kind of critical mass of experience + knowledge.

If that were the case, maybe to feel better you could go on twitter and talk about how the world and everyone in it are so unfair to you. And how everything that's ever been bad is someone else's fault, and everything that's ever been good is 100% because of you and you alone because you're the smartest and broken all the records, in fact you've broken the record for number of records broken etc lol 

There are alwasy exceptions.  That list was created with beginners/low rated players in mind.  Anything past USCF C class, and it becomes an encyclopedia.

I can relate to the chess epiphanies.  When i "peaked" as a USCF A player, i got there on Opening Principles, and being pretty bad at tactics.  But amazingly i did.  Friends told me i had a way of "blunting" what they were trying to do.  When in reality i had no clue what i was doing, so maybe it was intuition?  

I always hated studying openings, and then i discovered chessable.com.  

I always hated studying tactics, and again chessable.com to the rescue!

So now i actually study openings, and tactics, and enjoy it.  

My lastest infatuation?  Correspondance chess, and Pawn Structures.  Im having a blast watching videos on them, and learning a lot!

At 55, i dont have the desire to play long 3 day tournaments anymore.  I still love going and watching, but sitting there for hours for 3 days? No thank you.  

I can say that i am a better player now, than i have ever been.  I just enjoy the learning, and passing that knowledge on to others.  

I avoid the mainstream news.  I do read BBC news, and if something interests me?  I will do the leg work (critical thinking) to find out the truth.  I DO NOT blindly believe what the news media says.  

Yeah, you have to keep the audience in mind. I know I've given completely unhelpful advice to a new-ish player, then some noob comes along and says something simple and even I'm thinking "wow, his answer was way better than mine" lol. So yeah, there are exceptions, but like you said it's for lower rated players.

I know two guys. One in his 60s and one in his 70s. They still go to tournaments. The 60 year old guy recently did will in a tourney and gained ~50 points, putting him near his all time peak. Not that rating is all important, they enjoy it too. They give me hope that I'll be doing that one day.

Glad you found something that makes it fun. I've always hated openings too.

Media? I'm talking about twitter. Right from the horse's mouth.

Well, not all twitter, "no politician in history has been treated more unfairly" is from a speech. You can look it up and hear + see him say it if you want.

As for the media, definitely. You have to read multiple sources to see who is leaving out what information, and how they twist different things to make them seem better or worse than they really are.

I dont have, nor want a twitter account.  From what i have seen of twitter, their is a reason the first 4 letters are "twit"

I don't have twitter (or facebook or anything like that) either.

I'm kind of boring

But also I don't feel the need to let the world know what kind of sandwich I had for lunch, and post 100 photos of it lol... so I'm with you on that one.