This is like horoscope: list several vaguely defined traits + let psychology do the rest. What is psychology?: if you find that at least one of the traits fit you, you will forget about all the others. It is also not bad for your ego that you are compared to some great player - it is a win-win situation no matter which great player you are compared to.

So chances are that in vast majority of cases you will be happy with your result.

If was also happy until I learned what openings are suggested for me: the ones that I avoid in practice at all cost...

Yeah exactly, I was also assassin, but I'm not daft enough to think this makes me anything like Bobby, simply because he was infinitely better than I'll ever be.

wth:- magician like Tal. LOL

Mikhail Botvinnik, the professional

Suggested openings: Nimzo-Indian, English

Suggested defenses: French Winawer, Sicilian

None of which I play...

This is a mistake on the part of the authors of the test. Openings are too concrete - they should avoid this part to make the miracle happen.

 Avaricious game miner, digging deep to find sparkling games .

Very nice! I think it nailed me - Assassin. And the recommend openings are exactly the ones I normally play!

I think it's more accurate than that. The one problem that I would have with the test is that it mainly tests what you consider yourself to be.

Now, I'm a romantic:

Good ideas: Exactly - I spent all of my time, especially when I was lower rated, simply looking for unique positional (or tactical) ideas. My main problem was with precise calculation, not creativity.

Emotional - yes, I get easily frusterated and have extremely inconsistent results. Either I have a great tournament or a terrible one.

I always aim to play sound chess rather than crazy unsound gambits, but I love a good attack when it is sound, especially if it is creative. But my main problems seem to be with my emotions, my consistency, and relying more on intuition rather than precise calculation. Ivanchuk also seems like a good fit to me. One day I can beat a great player in a fantastic game, the next I can lose to someone 800 points below my rating in 20 moves. As my chess has improved, I feel somewhat better rounded, but I still love the creative, romantic style of chess.

The problem with this? That's how I feel about my chess, not necessarily how someone else looks at it. Maybe I just ended up as a romantic because I think I'm a romantic.

I an a romantic.

Thanks Erik. I am a Barbarian. I think it fits. Sometimes when I play chess I feel like a Neanderthal in a calculus class. Sometimes I feel like the whole world is mine to conquer. By force if necessary.

natural

assassinator of the realms

magician

According to the chess personality quiz, I am a professional; one who has a strong grasp of long term strategy. Truth be told, I am ambivalent that this characteristic identifies with Botvinnik. I was hoping my approach would be akin to Capablanca's. To some extent I rely on intuition to evaluate a position. But alas, it asserts that I am more inclined to calculate.

Magician!

Assassin, and I'd say that describes me pretty well.

Dark Lord.  Commander of the Imperial Fighter Squadron.  Loyal servant of myself.  Master of the Dark Side and the Light Side too.

I got "Prodigy" but I'm definitely no prodigy, lol.

I got the professional.