I've been meaning to ask something like this for a while. I don't even know what my playing style is. In fact, It seems like my games have only two distinct phases:
1. The first 8-10 moves.
2. My brain: "I don't really know what I'm doing. All I know is that I must not screw it up."
That is ME to a TEE !!
Do you prefer open or closed positions?
Do you prefer tactical or positional play?
Do you like playing with isolated pawns?
Hey! My favorite (almost) black belt! Thank you so much. I've been giving this serious consideration (and my best) answers, not ones I think you WANT to hear. And please call me out if you think I'm offering fluff instead of honest response.
Do you prefer open or closed positions?
It depends. Since I can trip over my own pieces (yet) and they're always getting in my way, I think I'd say I prefer open. I also LOVE LOVE long-distance attacks (Bishop/Queen) because that's what nails me the most. But if I'm in trouble, I prefer closed if they're short a Knight or two and I want to use pawns or pieces to block.
Do you prefer tactical or positional play?
I believe I understand 'positional play' (what it means but I'm NOT successful in it). I rarely have a clue which pawn to advance but I'm deep-diving pawn play in Chess Structures (Rios) right now. Tactical play? Yes. It excites me very much. But I'm also weak on tactics so ... but I LIKE fast and heavy attacks. Is that 'tactical?'
Do you like playing with isolated pawns?
Nooooooo. They irritate me and I want them taken because it costs too much resources attempting to defend the darned thing. They can be helpful if I want to use them as an outpost but that rarely happens for me.
Thank you so much for the questions. They have actually provided a view of the board that I've rarely - no, never - considered. Your first two questions make sense. The 'isolated pawns' really strikes me as an odd question so I am UTTERLY ENTHRALLED in why you asked it. Thank you so much for helping me open my eyes to the real issue here. 
You need to review your games and determine the following:
1. What types of middle game patterns am I getting?
2. What types of pawn structures are you getting?
What you need to study and learn are:
1. What are the pawn structures I am getting and how do I play them?
2. What are the middle game plans and ideas associated with those pawn structures?
Oh then what you play already seems fine. Centre game yea?
What do you play with black against c4/d4/e4?
“Even a poor plan is better than no plan at all”. My advice is don’t reinvent the wheel - most common openings have a fair amount of information about how to play them beyond the memorisation of the moves. If you’re at the beginner stage, you can still sculpt your game to how you feel you want to play it. Are you the sort of player who likes to win quickly by attacking the king? Do you want to slowly positionally crush your opponent and ruin their day like a boa constrictor? Do you want to pressure the centre until they crack? Do you want to sit tight and poke spears out, and wait for your opponent to impale himself? Once you know what you like to do, you can choose openings that benefit that style.
if that’s too tricky? The first step is getting used to making concrete plans. Once you’ve played the opening moves you know, sit and evaluate the position. Make a plan. Choose an idea. It doesn’t matter if you get it wrong, because you can evaluate it with computer help afterwards, and learn why the plan wasn’t right. And then try again.
You need to review your games and determine the following:
1. What types of middle game patterns am I getting?
2. What types of pawn structures are you getting?
What you need to study and learn are:
1. What are the pawn structures I am getting and how do I play them?
2. What are the middle game plans and ideas associated with those pawn structures?
Okay! I'm ON IT, Mike! Thank you so much! One question if I may ... does it matter which games I study? I have some against top players and some against those my range.
ADDED: And does it matter whether I won or lost the game?
ADDED FURTHER: I have 3 recent gaves in which I resigned because I was overwhelmed and @mQrphyus understands. I should skip those, right?
Okay! I'm ON IT, Mike! Thank you so much! One question if I may ... does it matter which games I study? I have some against top players and some against those my range.
ADDED: And does it matter whether I won or lost the game?
In this case I would say this would be the one time I would say that time control and result do not matter. Its all about learning how to play the middle games youre getting.
I know you have the Rios book. But something that I feel would be much appropriate for your skill level would be the following: "How to Reassess Your Chess" by Jeremy Silman and "Simple Chess" by John Emms.
Take your time, clear your mind and ask yourself what middlegame positions you ENJOY playing? Your opening depends on your middlegame style. Ask quesetions to realize it, do you like closed positions? do you like playing aggresively? do you like semi closed positions (thats me!), do you like fast paced or slow paced positions? etc. BUT its inportant to realize you may not find your middlegame style now or for some time, but it should come naturally, test and try but dont worry if you dont understand your style yet
Both books have now been ordered. Thank you! I will skip two games (one had 2 moves, one had 16 moves). But I'll include the third which had 26 moves and is far into middlegame. I really appreciate the input.
I've read reassess your chess, it's good
...... . But something that I feel would be much appropriate for your skill level would be the following: "How to Reassess Your Chess" by Jeremy Silman and "Simple Chess" by John Emms.
My skill level? So ... you mean ... I probably won't be a GM in time for New Year 2026? 
Nope, I won't ever be a GM but I'm having far more fun than them! I wouldn't trade this for (almost) anything. 
Thank you, Mike. Amazon delivers my books (it says) before Christmas! Incredible ratings on "How to Reassess Your Chess". Thanks for confirming that book was a must, @ChesssBlackBelt!
...... . But something that I feel would be much appropriate for your skill level would be the following: "How to Reassess Your Chess" by Jeremy Silman and "Simple Chess" by John Emms.
My skill level? So ... you mean ... I probably won't be a GM in time for New Year 2026?
Nope, I won't ever be a GM but I'm having far more fun than them! I wouldn't trade this for (almost) anything.
Thank you, Mike. Amazon delivers my books (it says) before Christmas! Incredible ratings on "How to Reassess Your Chess". Thanks for confirming that book was a must, @ChesssBlackBelt!
Two of the most instructive quotes:
You may learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win. You will have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player.
Jose Raul Capablanca
Chess books should be used as we use glasses: to assist the sight, although some players make use of them as if they thought they conferred sight
Jose Raul Capablanca
The second quote can be updated to fit todays mindset:
Chess engines should be used as we use glasses: to assist the sight, although some players make use of them as if they thought they conferred sight
Jose Raul Capablanca
You will have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player.
Jose Raul Capablanca
only 100s??? i'm probably gonna lose 100 games just today lmao
You will have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player.
Jose Raul Capablanca
only 100s??? i'm probably gonna lose 100 games just today lmao
Well when you go 8 years without losing. Hundreds probably feels like thousands.
Two of the most instructive quotes:
You may learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win. You will have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player.
Jose Raul Capablanca
Chess books should be used as we use glasses: to assist the sight, although some players make use of them as if they thought they conferred sight
Jose Raul Capablanca
The second quote can be updated to fit todays mindset:
Chess engines should be used as we use glasses: to assist the sight, although some players make use of them as if they thought they conferred sight
Jose Raul Capablanca
Wow, and the early Christmas just keeps on coming!! Thank you so much!
Now saved to my chess db and they will assuredly become wall quotes as well.
Both books have now been ordered. Thank you! I will skip two games (one had 2 moves, one had 16 moves). But I'll include the third which had 26 moves and is far into middlegame. I really appreciate the input.
If there is a particular book 📖 that you have in mind 💬 or thought about getting, let me know and I will see if I have it or something similar to it
That way can you can save $$ and shipping 🚢
Hi Forum folks, I really need help on this one - my middlegame style:
Okay, I get it. 'My opening choice should be based on the type(s) of middle games I want to play.' I do not know what type of middle game I want to play. Now what? Are there things to look for which will provide clues? This is like trying to see wind and I've been failing at it for at least four months now.
If determined by EVALUATION of my games should I consider:
A) Game(s) against +/- 100 players? Or players 500+ than me? Or does it matter?
B) Game(s) type be Daily for long study, or Rapid 45 or does it matter?
C) Should it be evaluation from both perspectives (white game and black game)?
D) When to evaluate. Right now I'm on massive losing streak which makes sense since I'm unmotivated and am (in most cases) playing over my head. I do NOT care about Ratings but the losses will skew (I think) my style since I'm usually just running for my life. ;-O It's not THAT bad but it was funny so I wanted to include it.
E) Or should I have new games evaluated and get direct input from stronger player on my middlegame?
I've played and have received incredible high-rate player feedback on my specific game failures and I've been given great annotations but never discussed middlegame style (my fault ... I never asked). Now I NEED to know. I've reviewed 9 *top Openings from here in Learn > Openings based upon forum comments. I spend so much time trying to answer WHY the moves are made (in each opening I study) that I never get around to asking, "did it feel like this is my style?"
THE CRUX: What does a GOOD middlegame stle FEEL LIKE??? Choosing the opening should come AFTER I determine my middlegame style and THAT is why I've been unable to decide on an opening (I THINK).
Anything please ... ANYTHING ... to help me move forward even a bit. Ideas on how to approach the issue, please.
ADDED: I FEEL aggressive. But it is clear a low-rate newb has no clue what aggressive even means. And correctin: evaluated 7 openings not 9