Positional or Tactical player

Hey there!
Certainly I have heard many people saying that “you should choose the opening based on your style, are you tactical or positional player.”
I certainly do understand that, but I get confuse while saying the personality of me in chess (tactical or positional).
I tried asking the ai if that can help me out,(addicted with ai lol) and here’s the information it gave me.

“In chess, players are often categorized as positional or tactical players based on their playing style. Here's how to determine which type might describe you better:

Positional Player:
Focus on long-term strategy and improving the position over several moves.
Prioritize control of key squares, pawn structure, and piece coordination.
Often, they avoid risky sacrifices unless absolutely necessary.
Enjoy endgames where patience and subtle moves matter.
Self-Check: Do you enjoy finding quiet moves that improve your position gradually? Are you comfortable with games that don’t involve heavy attacks early on?
Tactical Player:
Seek immediate, dynamic ways to challenge the opponent, often with surprising moves.
Love creating combinations, sacrifices, and forcing lines.”

Now comes the real question. Actually I do both of that, i wonder how do I play now? My personality is confusing me, can anyone of you give me clearer clarifications, since the point ai gave me was for sure to be kept, but at the time of playing I am comfortable With both? I mean,yeah. Please help me out, so I can know my personality and choose openings and other things according.

We are all both as we all try to respond to the needs of the position according to what we understand & have experience in.
The question only makes sense relative to another player: Do I shade a bit more tactical or positional in decisions than my friend?

I think it is somewhat of a misstake to try to identify as a certain player type. You put an unneccesary restraint on yourself. Try to be open-minded for everything chess has to offer.

Though I still wonder why a 2300-rated rapid player would ask something like this, I'll bite. I play almost exclusively 1.d4, which is generally considered positional. However, in reality, my opponents often allow me to play very sharp positions, like the Englund Gambit, etc. So, I second the opinion above. Just pick one of the mainstream openings and enjoy the ride.

@swimmerBill said in #2:

We are all both as we all try to respond to the needs of the position according to what we understand & have experience in.
The question only makes sense relative to another player: Do I shade a bit more tactical or positional in decisions than my friend?
Well, I believe I am better at tactical tho I am, but idk why I fail to anything at the board. Now, I started a lot Positional books and exercise, and I easily find a positional play In a GM position but fail to find at my own game.

@lazzaknight said in #4:

Though I still wonder why a 2300-rated rapid player would ask something like this, I'll bite. I play almost exclusively 1.d4, which is generally considered positional. However, in reality, my opponents often allow me to play very sharp positions, like the Englund Gambit, etc. So, I second the opinion above. Just pick one of the mainstream openings and enjoy the ride.

Okay.this seems good but I am an e4 player, I play guico painoissmo( the silent Italian) and that’s where the positional play comes up, and I mostly end up either drawing or loosing hardly winning on the board. I thought changing the opening line to guico piano (open game ) but

First off, obviously a chess player should be able to play competently in all sorts of positions whether they're tactical (sharp positions, require a lot of calculation, and need to find critical moves or else lose) or positional (where you are unlikely to lose quickly, but still need to carry out long-term ideas and maneuvering).

Players who are not universal are not "tactical" or "positional" players, but just weak players. For example, someone who has a great understanding of positional chess, but can't spot a 2-move tactic, will be low rated no matter what. A great example is "The Backyard Professor" on Youtube - basically, he studies Silman's imbalance book a lot, but was very weak in tactics, and could not get over 1000 USCF rating as a result.

After that, you should notice what choices you go for. Sometimes you will have roughly equal choices, often in the opening, where you can choose to steer the game towards more quiet or sharp positions. What positions are you typically more comfortable with, or choose often? That's the answer to whether you're a positional or tactical player.

@crtex said in #7:

First off, obviously a chess player should be able to play competently in all sorts of positions whether they're tactical (sharp positions, require a lot of calculation, and need to find critical moves or else lose) or positional (where you are unlikely to lose quickly, but still need to carry out long-term ideas and maneuvering).

Players who are not universal are not "tactical" or "positional" players, but just weak players. For example, someone who has a great understanding of positional chess, but can't spot a 2-move tactic, will be low rated no matter what. A great example is "The Backyard Professor" on Youtube - basically, he studies Silman's imbalance book a lot, but was very weak in tactics, and could not get over 1000 USCF rating as a result.

After that, you should notice what choices you go for. Sometimes you will have roughly equal choices, often in the opening, where you can choose to steer the game towards more quiet or sharp positions. What positions are you typically more comfortable with, or choose often? That's the answer to whether you're a positional or tactical player.

Thank you,I will try workin’ on it !

I can give at least one good insight. You see how your bullet rating is 1700? Do you not know why this is? Surely this is the one stat that tells you everything you want to know. I don't know everything you do, but here is my shot at it:

Let me assume for a minute that you are a young adult (20-35 years old). That would put you in the category of somebody that studied and played LONG chess almost solely your entire career. If you are not a young adult, then you've almost certainly learned chess as an adult which means you had to logic your way to every conclusion - kids do it differently (and that's why it takes longer for you to calculate than other 2300s that played chess since before they were born)

Your calculations are likely slower than the average 2300. Therefore putting yourself into positions with many branches of complicated lines will not help your edge, it will only hurt your clock. You'll want to find many positions that rely on some future positional consideration where a quick calculation can not reach it - your edge is most likely in the endgame. This actually means the more endgames you can swindle from a drawn position, the better.

If you memorize openings, than there is no personality. Your personality appears as you invent your own opening moves. It might not be novelty and then sooner or later it becomes novelty because you are no-longer in a known opening. For some their personality appears in the way they play a phase of the game, while for others they are simply copy cats. An imitation of a master, because they memorized openings but as the game progresses there true weakness appears and then they lose the game because they really don't know anything about winning an end game and expect everyone to resign early or they win by the flag.

Half of the chess moves is really familiar territory and it's the last half that shows your chess knowledge.

While memorizing openings can provide a foundation, true mastery and individuality often emerge in how players navigate through unfamiliar positions and phases of the game. Balancing memorization with a deep understanding of chess principles is key to developing a unique playing style and achieving success on the board.