Ideas on how to "sharpen" my style?

Your skull set??  (direct quote from above)

Time to start a diet, @Pavy, don't you think?  It's clouding your thinking.

@Chessman, your archive is empty, numbnuts.  What planet do you hail from?

Chess players are such an eccentric lot.  Goes with the territory. 

then why is it boring playing 1.e4. AFAIK there is no more sharper opening, except maybe you play unconventional 1. f3, 1 f4, 1. b4, etc.

1.e4 is not positional.

Yes z, skull set when skill set was what was implied. The problems associated with using a phone to place forum entries. On a positive note, the simple fact that my use of grammar and syntax is the platform that you are able to use to assail my premise verifies that they are without refutation through logical discourse. Thank you for indirect validation, which is validation nonetheless.

Well. I generally prefer a Ruy Lopez type of opening, but I rarely get anything sharp. I should add that my major problem is my approach to playing sharper chess. I wanted a way of doing it without being completely and utterly helpless. Here is a game with "reckless" aggression.

@L2gt, nothing wrong with being a positional player but the problem is, especially here with American chess players, is that few players well take the time to study these concepts, especially given all the pet line books available and analysis software out there being sold to the masses under the guise of that if you learn this opening or that theory, you too can become a NM in no time. Odd as it may seem, the same people who others for trying to learn a concept that can only help improve their play as though they are talking from the mountaintop to the common folk are also the same ones who have a gross deficiency in the very area they choose to speak upon. I have never said, nor will I, that I am some sort of authority on what I am talking about, I am however on a daily basis the best authority on the strength and weaknesses of Bill Coleman and the best player I can be at the moment. That being said, those who read my posts can take them or leave them, but there are some that may learn from them as well.

Look into some lines in the Spanish like three Schliemann and Arkangelsk as Black or as White, something like Floht-Zaitsev Variations. There are many lines available but like someone else was saying, e4 games are more tactical than positional, unless you play something like the Italian four knights or a similar game, but even these come into tactical modes often as well. This is because if you look at the occupation of squares and their defense, e4 is occupied by a pawn and is not immediately defended and therefore, subject to attacks easier than the d4 square which also is occupied by a pawn but defended direct by the Queen. Therefore, you have to maneuver around the pieces to assail this pawn or close the board down. Hence why many players who like to attack will play e4 and if facing d4, tend to learn lines like the Indian, Dutch and Grunfeld rather than study the lines of say the QG. It just does not suit their style of play and at the risk of sounding biased, makes many one-dimensional players out of people. Still, of d4 was not sound, then no respectable GM would adopt it.

Be careful confusing tactical and positional play. They are like half brothers In that they ate both facets of play but are totally dissimilar in many respects. Tactics can arise from positional play butnot do much can positional play come from tactical games.

how about the benoni? that's supposed to be tactical as well.

sorry, but I don't really understand your game and what you are aiming.

I think you shud work on your defense too, besides your offense.

The Benoni is very tactical. Thanks.I forgot to include it there. Likely because of the fact that Black does not directly contest d4 but rather attempts to go for imbalances and flank play on the Queen side early.

Nah.  Don't suffer fools gladly.  Sorry to read about your "balance issues."

Nice smile though, @OnDeck.  Makes you look all the more profound.  

Perhaps just a touch on the anger. Really doesn't help much in dispelling the idea that chess players are emotionally and socially deficient individuals don't you think?

Yes, defense is a problem.

Would that not make you a masochist then if you do not suffer fools, gladly or otherwise? This of course is implying that the benefit off the doubt of being given that you are capable of pursuing rational discourse. Pray that I am not giving to much credit here. Someday, I might be surprised to find that there exists a capacity within you to rise above the pseudo-trolling that is routinely seen in many of your postings.

Good insight atlec on opening selections.

We are a cuddly group of misfits and savants.  Myself included.  

Fix that avatar, @ATFlack.  What will the women think?

I see in your game you attacked queen side. Most of that type of games is positional.

If you want to play tactics then you attack center or king side.