what type of player are you

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.

i am the blunder type.  i for some reason am very careless, and blunder because of that

Positional. I'm very strong in this part of the game (at least relative to other parts). My tactics are decent, but I'm often too pessimistic about attacking sacrifices for either side and when I'm in those kinds of insanely sharp positions my game can often crack.

I'm a "stumbler". I stumble onto wins and losses equally. In OTB play, I stumble into the board, apologizing, and wiping my drink off of my opponent, while picking up the pieces in a timely manner. I don't remember how I win, which is fine because I have no recollection of how I've lost. Yes...a stumbler.

I just move and see what happens. I lose a lot of pieces this way.

Wildly inconsistent. Some days, I can hang with people rated 1800-2000. Some days, I lose to people with three digit ratings. I need to develop better patience and board discipline.

Palanka -- I was playing some speed chess with an elderly russian gentleman in Cambridge Mass, and after being destroyed in a King's Gambit another Russian asked my opponent what he thought of me and he answered in Russian something like: palanka  -- so that's the type of player I am -- palanka -- I don't know what it means but from the way he said it I'm pretty sure it's a special russian form of pathetically and disgracefully awful.

horrible.

positional.

"I don't need to have a good plan, I just need my opponent to have a bad one" - Tarrasch

I'm an attacking player.sometimes I choke,sometimes my opponent chokes,but no one can accuse me of playing boring chess lol

Sometimes I get overconfident and become a real gambler. I'll gamble that I can reach my opponent's king before he can reach mine. That often ends badly because I've miscalculated or overlooked an attack. Who says that there isn't any gambling in chess? 

Not very good...

One that tries to win :)

thats how i play normally but wanting to increase my attacking chess but I'm highly know against the people i play for my defense as black but still make little positional blunders and just blunders period.

I play to arrive at at least an equal endgame - which I often win cause most of my opponents seem to be completely incapable of counting squares till a pawn queens...

Positional! Nimzowitsch is my hero!

i play e4, but i play positionally

Wit respect, may I suggest you change your name. It's giving me the blues.

I would love to have a sacrificial style like Tal but I don't have his intuition. I'd like to be a calculating machine like Alekhine but I don't have the visualization. I'd like to be able to positionally squeeze people like Karpov but I don't have the understanding. So what I do is I simply try to play what the board tells me to play. If the board screams for positional chess I have to sit down and play slow chess. If it screams "mate the king and sac that bishop or rook" I will do it. Works out pretty good eventhough I'm none of the masters mentioned above. Maybe it does remind of Kramnik that said: "I don't play the board, the board plays me".

I'm somewhat better at positional chess than I am at tactical chess.  Oddly, I enjoy sharp games more, and will seek them out at the expense of my win %.

I'm definitely an endgame player (corrolary, I'm terrible the first 12 moves of most games).   I can calculate far better with less pieces on the board, and my intuition is often more accurate than it is during the middlegame or opening.  As a result I will GLADLY steer an unclear middlegame into an unclear (or even drawish) endgame, simply because I think that gives me better chances.

As for what sort of player I am, the big thing for me is initative and active piece play.  I don't care if we're playing positional chess, tactical chess, on move six, or on move 60.   I want to be the guy making the threats, and I want all my pieces to be in the game.  I'd much rather sacrifice an inactive rook than an active bishop, though I'd pull the trigger on either sac if it gives me aggressive play and a well mobilized army.