What is your playing style?

Grab material and hang on.

my style is : launch a pawn storm whenever i can.

Thanks for the response grey_pieces.  I wasn't slamming the thread, quite the opposite, but apologise if my tone was misread.  I was really looking to see if there is a corelation between your rating and your own assessment of your game.  I tend to play better against better players, but i'm not sure if I shape the board or react to it.  I make amaturish mistakes and tell myself I should know better, and have started restricting the number of active games I have to about 5 or 6.  I lose the plot if I have more than that, or it becomes too big a time commitment to really play each game. 

my style i suppose is inconsistent and sloppy.

I like to play closed games,but i am not so good,so most of the time i don't have any style or tactic...

I play 1 d4 & 1 e4 e6 (sometimes c6).  I like the struggle to gain control of lines, and then use them effectively.  The feeling of changing a positional plan into a concrete superiority is great.

My bad also, I didn't really misread your tone, I don't think. I'm very opinionated, and I could talk the ass off of an ass... sometimes my intent to join in analysis and discussion can come across as argumentative; I'm genuinely attempting to be constructive, rather than destructive.

I also play better against better players. There are a few reasons for this, in my belief. Firstly, I think you try harder, because you long to demonstrate enough potential to be worthy of a second game/lesson. And there is nought like seeing a rating several hundred points below your own to inspire some overconfidence!

But secondly, sometimes a weaker player will beat you with strong looking moves in the opening which are totally unsound. The better players are avoiding such moves, presumably because they see refutations that we miss... so sometimes it feels like you played badly, when your opponent made the errors and you just didn't look hard enough for the answers.

I'll add a third reason, which is less common I would guess, but certainly I do it occasionally when trying to encourage weaker players. Sometimes you set little tests for your opponent, which are entirely solvable and will make him or her feel good if they see the answer. And sometimes you choose weaker lines because they are fun and its certainly better to try less sound lines on easier opponents! Also very strong players are more than happy to play a longer, safer, accurate game holding a minor advantage all the way, whilst weaker players will browbeat and go for every opportunity they see even if it risks throwing away the edge. It normally comes down to their not being comfortable in endgame with only just enough advantage to win. It will appear that the second player bests you more easily, but it isn't always so.

Actually, I dont think it's likely that anyone ( under master) will find their Style very easily because the move you play is what you consider the best move or plan, so you would see it as another regular move. I think If someone else looks at your game they can get a better understanding of what your style is.

I hate to be contrary (again) but surely its the other way round? A master believes the moves they play are the best possible moves in the position, and its their fans and opponents that mainly talk about style. OTOH, I'm often playing moves I know are weaker simply because I understand them better or because I want to get out of book (the status quo of accepted best moves to a given depth).

As a weaker player, you often have difficulty deciding which of several options is best, and often go with the one you like the most - a master will know at a glance which of these moves is truly best. A master has a belief, more than a style, about the best way to play, and they choose moves to prove it.

I totally agree that another person is usually better equipped to spot your style, and it really helps to play you themselves, as the time which you take to find different sorts of moves is more telling than anything else, especially at a higher level, were players are usually finding the "best" moves.

I disagree, Masters have a better understanding of the position and then decide on a move that they "believe" is best. That is basically what a style is, it's a belief. On the other hand The lower rated player will have some understanding of the position and play a move because they like it and it will likely have a lot to do with their emotions. If you ask a lower rated player they will most likely tell you the style they like to play and not the actual style they play when the going gets tough. This has to do with lack of understanding.

I don't really know If a master would find their style easier then a lower rated player obviosly because I'm not a master so I can't really comment on that. That is why I said anyone under master in my previous post

Strategically inept.

As for the master who only "plays the position" this is interesting, but of course there are the choices which lead to the position.  And by looking over many games a player may see that they tend to be aggressive or tend to prefer open games to closed ones, ext.

I disagree that weaker players don't have styles, considering everyone gets to choose which opening they prefer and the general direction of each game. So they probably haven't played enough games to see what they like and don't like. By style you could also say what type of positions you are more comfortable with. For instance some players excel at the endgame and may be weak at the opening phase, and so their style might be to get to an endgame as quickly as possible.

I've only been taking chess "seriously" (meaning: picking up a book every once and awhile) for a few years, and I got really into positional play.  Lately, I've been studying tactics, and opting for some sharper positions.  Overall, though I I think I like to invite my opponent to overextend and counterattack or win material and simplify into a won endgame.  That's when things are going my way.  Otherwise, I get blasted by move 20.

when I play with withe pieces I am aggressive(I like Evans Gambit), and then I'm playing tactical. when i play with black pieces I play very defensive and positional and i hope for a draw..

You lost me on this one. I have disected it 16 ways from Sunday and it still doesn't make sense to me.

Plodding. Like the Michelin Man walking in deep snow.

as white classical, positional, as black hypermodern.

I play positional and aggressive.

I allways try to get my pieces in a position in wich I feel they should be. Then I create a plan. The plan can differ from quickmates to just positional advantage. depends on my opponent

My style is somewhere in between Tal and Petrosian.