Finding my chess style

I am taking the Gary Kasparov master class and he said in the intro it is very important to find out your style.

So i am trying to figure out what natural style I am.

I played several 5 min games today trying different styles (losing a great deal). 

and I took this chess personality test a few times but wasn't extremely consistent with the results. I got the champion the first time then decided to try it again and got the natural then got the magician.  took it one more time and got champion again.

I feel like for sure I am an attacking player (always like to be dictating the pace and when I am playing slow and positionaly I will blunder making bad sacrafices to create space) probably a little emotional and my intuition and calculation may be about even leaning toward the calculating side (dont get a chance to do this in blitz but it shows up in daily chess). I guess  But how would you describe solid vs aggressive? Any tips on finding my style?   i read all the descriptions and i the magician or the romantic fits me best. 

Your tactics rating is 915.  the last "style" you should be trying to play is attacking.  Also, if youre finding that playing slowly is causing you to blunder a lot, it means youre not understnanding the positions.  And...playing 5 minute chess is not a good way to figure out how you like to play.

Kasparov is a world champion and I'm nobody... so get a 2nd opinion, but here's my take:

A common misconception for newer players is that they have a style... and since many want to know, this sounds like a marketing gimmick.

In the beginning you don't have a style, you have strengths and weaknesses. Your strengths are what you know, and your weaknesses are what you don't. Your "style" is playing what you know.

For example it's said Kasparov's style was aggressive backed up by lots of calculation... this was said because when the position offered a choice, he chose to attack vs (for example) going into a favorable endgame and winning that way. This does not mean he wouldn't crush you positionally or in a technical endgame if given the chance and that were the only way. He had many endgame wins, just like Karpov (known for positional play) had many attacking wins. Your style is the choice you make when the position gives you a choice.

Right now, just focus on learning all the elements (like strategy, tactics, attack defense, opening, endgame). Later you can think about a style.

The chess personality test is definitely just for fun.

Here's a video of Naka taking it, I wonder who he plays like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrN16c3DTzE

I agree. You don't have style. And you surely cannot "try"different styles. Become a strong chess player and the style will find you.

"Building a repertoire ... we will take the idealized situation of someone starting from square one ... The first step is to think about your personal style. Do you prefer open, tactical positions or closed, strategic positions? Does an attack on your king make you nervous, or are you happy so long as you have a counter-attack? Do you prefer main lines, or something slightly offbeat? Next, look at the various openings available, and see which ones fit in with your personal style. ..." - GM John Nunn (1998)
"There is no such thing as a 'best opening.' Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.
For example, if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)." - IM Jeremy Silman (January 28, 2016)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/opening-questions-and-a-dream-mate

"... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. If you like to attack and you are not afraid of sacrificing and taking risks choose sharp gambit openings. If you prefer a quiet game, then there are relatively calm openings for you. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

@kindaspongey is a bot.

 You have a very inconsistent style. Sometimes you can be an aggressive defensive player, sometimes you can be a passive romantic player, sometimes you can be a tactical simple player, or maybe even an unsound natural player. It all depends on your mood.

I think this has do more with your personality. For example if you are cautious person, you maybe don't like sharp tactical games and vice versa.

As a fellow low level player, i can tell you that we have one style.   Blunder...

Are you the one who told us about being known as the Draw Master?

It’s important to realize that Kasparov later on clarifies that, though he may not play quiet positional games as well as Karpov, “I still play them pretty good!”  In trying to become a better chess player, we need to have a general foundation on all aspects of the game: opening, middlegame, endgame, strategy, tactics, attack, defence, etc.  Once we have that, we can pick a particular branch and focus on it.

I liken it similar to high school or university.  There’s a set curriculum you must learn, but then there’s the electives, where you can focus on your interests.  If you never study a subject, you won’t know if you like it or not.  In my case, I was (or considered myself to be) an aggressive attacking player from 1400 to 1800 rating.  Then I really started studying positional concepts, I began using them in my games and, wow, I really like playing this way.  Had I kept hacking away with f4-f5 every game, I might never had found this side of chess.

At the same time, amateur chess is mainly played for fun, which again Kasparov touches on.  If you hate closed positions like the French defence, you don’t need to devote 50 hours studying it.  We don’t need to master every subject, but we need to have at least some understanding.  From there, one or more aspects will appeal to us, and that would be our style, or our natural inclination. 

Tal was one of, if not the best attacking player of all time, but he also played some beautiful positional games.  

Petrosian, was the king of the exchange sac, went 2 years in a row without losing a game at the USSR championship, was an incredibly difficult man to beat due to his "Safety above all else" mentality.  But he also played some beautiful sacrifices.  

Forget about the "style" and play the board.

The only way to determine your style is to do a scientific analysis of your games and to ascertain by empirical evidence what you prefer.  Twenty as white and twenty as black minimum to determine whether you were more or less successful in closed, open or semi open positions.  Doesn’t matter if you analyse with an engine or a friend, a trainer or simply self analysis, you must be objective. Five minute blitz games are useless for this, ideally they should be long time controls.  All else is pure bumf.

"... these days all grandmasters know very well that chess isn't only about playing good moves. In the majority of positions, there are a number of possible moves of roughly equal merit, ..." - GM John Nunn (2014)

"... we can see from the above that players who are happy as White to play for a small edge in a queenless middlegame have a number of lines where they can achieve the sort of position they want. Even in other variations, the willingness to settle for a near-equal endgame, rather than trying to obtain an objective opening advantage, makes one's whole job of opening repertoire management very much easier. ... With his superb intuition and depth of positional understanding, [Petrosian] was accustomed to treating the opening relatively flippantly, and did not normally strive very hard to gain a theoretical advantage. ... it seems to me that for many players below master level, having a repertoire where there is minimal need to prepare could in fact be quite attractive. It must be remembered that, despite its shortcomings, Petrosian's approach proved good enough to wrest the world title out of the hands of Botvinnik, one of the best-prepared players ever. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2003)

"... You should prepare your repertoire according to your own chess tastes and style. ..." - GM Artur Yusupov (2008)

I like IM Danny's take on the subject: "Players under 2000 don't have a style; they just have weaknesses they're trying to avoid."

"... one simply cannot play the [Najdorf Sicilian] safely without studying the complications and remembering a lot of concrete variations. If you are averse to doing this, or you have a poor memory, you are better off avoiding such lines." - FM Steve Giddins (2003)

the OP is not talking about certain openings, he is asking how he can determine what his playing style is unless I have misread his intent.  That is how he can practically go about finding out.

Some seem to see a connection between opening choice and tastes in play - perhaps a reason for thinking about taste/style issues, instead of following the advice of those who try to discourage such thinking.