what type of player are you

I'm transitioning from tactical/initiative drivin to positional (as positional as a class player can be anyway lol).  So I like best to have static advantages I can maneuver around and to eventually transition them into an endgame.  Which means I also like sacrifices that make sense to me / whose evaluations are clear.

Sacrifices that I evaluate as unclear I'm uncomfortable doing though, if there's a small advantage I can try to keep with a safe move instead I'll go with that.

The type that tries to make better moves than my opponent.

crappy but passive

man really i've heard that all endgame players put up a fight evenif there not in the endgame yet. sweet i'm trying to find time to study endgame.

your a defensive player from the sound of it which is what i partly am. I only play defensively as black but when i get strong enough i'd liike to challenge you with the black pieces to see who's defense is better.

I don't have a style- my play is rubbish so when I make my weird moves I can't call them a "style" they are more of a lack of ability.

I'm gradually transfering from crappy tactical/attacking player to even crappier calm and styleless player. I tend to be less crappier in defense than I used to be when I was younger but my agresiveness is somewhat blunted during OTB games.

I'm a typical Grand Patzer.

I'm a custodial type of player. What I mean is that I make a lot of mistakes so my games look like garbage. If I don't clean up the mess I lose the game.

i'm an idiot in chess.

does this mean our an attacker.

I would say I have a universal style, if that means anything. I play a variety of different openings and positions, and feel fairly comfortable in most types of pawn structures, although I cannot claim to be an expert at any particular type of position. I am happy to grab a pawn or a better position and grind out an endgame, as well as play for an attack and sac material from time to time. I just try to find the best move or plan in a position and go from there. I usually don't initiate complications if they go into very unclear positions, unless I am playing from a worse position or in a blitz game. My favourite positions are those with strong imbalances, and where both sides have many different plans. My game is still shot full of holes though, so I can't claim to really have a "style" in the sense that different GM's have different styles.

most players who vary like you do just turn out to be tacticians or strategist.

At twelve I feel like I missed the boat. (I win.)

I'm nineteen and I've missed the boat long ago. My style is very materialistic: I love grabbing pawns (actually my opening and middlegame goal is usually to grab enough material advantage to secure me an endgame win) and almost always accept piece sacrifices (unless the catch is very obvious).

big weiner

I like to blunder pieces and commit positional suicide. Also, I forget all my opening theory and play endgames like an idiot. That being said, one could say I have a universal style, universally bad.

Tactical opportunist. I mean that I play conservatively until I see a tactical opportunity. I like to give my opponent lots of tactical fires to put out. Then hope for a strategic blunder or favorable endgame. Many times I make the blunder.

Yes. This describes me to a tee. Although if by some miracle I actually win a game I also like to lord it over my opponent with bad advice and erroneous pointers. 

Really though, everyone is bad. I listen to the live commentary on Topalov v Anand and it seems there is wide agreement that whoever most recently lost a game is a complete idiot, washed up, an embarassment to chess ... if the game is drawn it's because neither man has a single new idea to offer chess and has the fighting spirit of a salted slug.