what type of player are you

I have no idea.

I like positions with clear ideas where I don't have to calculate a lot.  Maybe my style is "lazy?"  haha.

No player without a title (expert and higher) has a style. They're bad at everything, there just less bad at a few things. 

is there any chance that you are an expert player??

Nope, i'm solidly a class player. And I might be putting the bar too low, perhaps it's NM or higher. 

Style indicates a preference when one has a choice, not a default position assumed because of glaring weaknesses in other areas. One need only listen to class players talk to understand that they choose moves based on what they understand, not on what the best move is.

Weekly at my local club some class player will be going over a game with one of the titled players and after being shown a great move will say something like "Oh, I never considered that, that's too positional for me" or "Oh, I didn't look at moving that piece because of the tactics." etc.

Us class players don't have styles, we have weaknesses. Lots of them.  

yes i totally agree with that Kingpatzer i was just curious why you said expert.

Because that is the end of the class-level players. 

For the most part I agree with kingpatzer, but even if low ranked players are weak in all areas of the game, they can still prefer to try for certain types of positions they enjoy (like attacking... probably it's usually attacking).  So among their peers they'll seem to have a style.

You may say that at ~2200 level a player is well rounded enough to make real choices but I think that's because you're below 2200.  An IM may say there's no style until 2600 (I've read at least 1 player claim this as the rating).

I recognize I may be setting the bar too low. But I'm not qualified to judge the play at that level, so I only know that there's no style at least until that point. 

I don't think there is a bar to set.  I think players are bias by their own point of view.

Although I also agree with you (I'd say I have no style because too many holes in my understanding), and I think it's likely we agree on the ideas of it all but the language isn't good at communicating them.

waffle i totally agree with your point being made. Reminds me of something a fairly strong IM once said (close to 2500 fide) he says most often its not the concrete moves that are so different but the plans. Most weaker players dont lack in good concrete moves but lack good plans. But probably when you master more technique planning also gets better i would suspect.

im kind of a beginner and have pretty much stopped using standard openings and focused more on just trying to force tatical situations.  I  have found that i actually win more playing this way.  

Technician

It's true that a style could just mean you are only slightly less bad at certain aspects, but I don't really connect style to skill. You could argue that you shouldn't have a style at amateur level for practical reasons -- it might keep you from improving your game; but to say a style simply isn't there is something much stronger.

I have always felt a very Karpovian style in me, besides the fact that unlike Karpov I would make horrendous blunders; I was simply a failed attempt at playing like Karpov. Now that I am more consistent, I feel myself being slightly closer to him, winning grinding games etc, except for the fact that, still, I lack the consistency and still make mistakes that he would never make. But my lack of competence does not keep me from clearly having a certain way of doing things, at least in my experience.

Even if I am making a choice between an equally good positional and tactical move, misguided as my choice may be, I'm still doing so. I can claim to have a style of play and yet be extremely bad at chess.

If people want to connect style with skill, as in, "you converted that position with style," then it's just a semantics issue most likely. What you are calling preferences I'm calling style; we're probably talking about the same thing but using a different word to describe it. If you don't like using the word "style" I'm totally fine with just calling them "playing habits" or something as in chess I look at them synonymously.

I consider myself a "normal"  player I guess?  not good, not bad.....I play for fun

im little bitt worse than normal

I guess that is fine too    lol

Stealth bomber.

Too afraid to attack in front of you, I hide up in the clouds and wait patiently, before unleashing my bombs at the opportune moment. I am sneaky, silent and invisible.

I play for positional gains mostly. I also prefer equality in a simple position, rather than chasing a pawn and then trying to hold onto it in a complex, awkward position.

I like to grind(may include positional) it out! Or I may like bust bulkheads(pawn structure near king)!

If your either of those then you might have a problem.

arbitrary, sometimes trying to be positional, sometimes dreaming of tactics which won't work out. Definitely missed the boat before turning 40!