Why do some players seem to become more Tactical and others Positional players?

Is there a precise defenition or this just subject to one's judgement since all play seems to be intertwined. All great players are excellent in both styles. I have yet to define my style of play since am not a strong player but i have often wondered .

What makes a chess player into more of a tactical style of play and others into a positional style of play?

There are a few description of the styles that i have run acrossed..

Tactical player : His play is more based on caculation; pure logic; more into a sacrificial play; sharper in opening preparation. Play has more depth and aims for more of a dynamic position.

Positional player : His play is more based on experience ; intuition based; builds up a quiter attack. Play has more flow.

Some great players descibed to have a positional style of play : Capablanca, Smyslov, Petrosian and Karpov.

Some great players described to have a tactical style of play : Alekhine, Kasparov and Tal.

I'm prone to blunders more than other players at my level, so I try to play positional games to get around that.

Also, Myers-Briggs says I'm an intuitive thinker, which suits a positional style.

I'm rather patient and I don't mind making a few positional adjustments if I don't see a clear line of attack.  Often my opponent becomes patient and attacks prematurely, and I'm able to gain material.  However, tactical players often find themselves in closed positions and positional players in open positions.  Personally, I love playing French Defense and closed games.  But that's just me.

I always been attracted to closed in games when am playing black side of the board i prefer a complicated position . I always prefer the Alekhine defense and defenses that get me more to think if not i get bored or loose the desire i need the constant attack or need to see somewhat of a puzzle on the board. I do not mind loosing pieces to obtain the win or mate.... But am a rather not that strong so i do not see if it reflect in my games...

I think you said it Shortandedrosary "Intuitive thinker" possibly and the more patient the person the more he is prone to play a positional style...

The key is that people aren't calling themselves 'positional' players as a coverup for being a weak tactician and vice versa (and a LOT of players do this).

Both 'styles' tend to flow into one another.

i think your definitions are wrong: they could be easily switched around.  often tactical players play by intuition alone (read: me).

 You could be correct! but i just posted what many think are the differences...

intuition

a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. b. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

logic

 I know a few things about "Genetics and Y-DNA" i do not think it has to do much ....

A few examples on desciptions of great players:

Capablanca : liked to control the position and to focus only on elements he felt were necessary to achieve victory.

Kasparov :was the most computer like in tactical ability with incredible tactical vision and yet he possessed a profound positional understanding and had the deepest opening preparation in history.

Alekhine :was a strong player with great determination and studied for many years to make himself "the complete player". He had an incredible combinative talent. He is Kasparovs' hero and this in itself is sufficient to make him a player worthy of imitation.

Karpov:  a player who takes positional play to new depths the term 'Karpovian' is derived from Karpovs style and refers to slow and deep positional maneuvers.

The ultimate positional player is Petrosian.

I think that younger players are definitely more tactically orientated. When you start out, you always need your tactics to reach a certain strength before you can even begin to think about position.

I started out playing completely tactical games, then found that I enjoyed the positional aspect more. I mean, I like a game that finishes off in a beautiful tactical combination, but I like a game that involves intricate maneuvers, quiet building up, etc. a lot more.

I found that as time went on, I relied more and more on intuition, to the extent that my tactics, especially in attacking play, was beginning to go severely downhill. When I began I was more or less a balanced player - later I became almost completely defensive.

Realizing that this may become a problem, I began training my tactics again, with (un)surprisingly good results.

 I do not know "Alot" but i do run a Y-DNA project for a couple of years now  .. If you ever want to prove "Genetics " has to do with a Tactical or Positional player i refer you to take a test of your Genome and Y-DNA and see your strength becomes stronger... Send me a private message and i get you in contact with the correct company ... 

that was the coolest thing ive ever heard Gonnosuke thanks for the tal quote.  i cant remember how said it but "the way he plays chess demonstrates a mans whole nature?" 

They all intertwine. 

Positional, tactical, theoritical, intuitive, calculating-concrete

Any and all of these words apply to any chess player and positional can be concrete or intuitive.  Tactical can be intuitive or concrete. 

All I know is the better I get at positional play the better I get.  The better I get at calculating tactics the better I get.  When I decided I wanted to get better at attacking(/and or) what did I do?  Every game I played when I saw a sacrifice that MIGHT work or even just looked interesting I played it.  (I no longer do this unless I feel like my game is getting "stale")  

On that note you could even argue that you can train intuition as well. The more I see, the more I "try out" the more moves "just seem right".  Then my calculating side enters into the equation.  Yes, yes that is correct  or  I don't actually see anything wrong with it but I can't calculate it all.  If I don't see anything wrong and my intuition tells me yes then yes it is in my case.  If you don't trust yourself then who else will.   And most of the time the intuition is right.  If unfortunately there is something wrong then time to look for something else.

Almost anybody who plays me will say I am very attacking/tactical or even some go as far as to say I don't like positional(completely untrue, I like a winning positional game.  But, if neither positional or tactical is objectively better then tactical it is).

Sorry if I rambled a bit.  I tend to go on tangents.  Hopefully you got something out of that. 

Tactical players:

(1) tend to select orthodox openings (sharper lines),

(2) sharper lines in middle game, as there are fewer choices of moves, and hence there is less amount of calculations involved (more choices = more calculations),

(3) makes sacrifices based on calculations, not speculations

(4) contrary to what said above, tend to select open lines

(5) obviously, tactics get priority over strategy. 

Positional Players,

(1) tend to select hypermodern openings,

(2) tend to select less sharp lines where strategy comes to the foreground,

(3) tend to close part of the position, i.e., mostly closed games.

(4) obviously strategy gets priority over tactics.

Positional play is actually a higher order of tactical play, requires far greater experience, where certain moves are given which can handle all possible opponent strategies.

 WHA???

Sharper lines have less to be calculated? 

why are some people right handed and some left?

why are some people poetic and others pragmatic?

why are some people ...... etc etc etc.

there is one question of all that....... WHY?

Same reason

There are 3 kinds of people in the world... those who can count, and those who cannot ! 

 and the people who can't count are the positional players