at what point is style not a factor in someone's play?

They mode or less just play optimal Chess ! GM would be my guess. I've heard having a style I'd a strength and weakness. The recent Norway tournament where Nils showed a lot of character but ultimately got demolished is a example of style being present even at a 2600s Level or was he out calculated (admittedly didn't look to closely into the games )

People always try to attach things found in sports and hobbies to chess. Don't go along with everything you read in chess magazines and books or indeed enthusiastic chess fans, they want to make chess sound good (which goes for other hobbies as well). 

Potential for style is very limited for chess and can only be reliably spotted by at least masters and above. Now, obviously noone can stop you from playing wild and claiming to be an aggressive player, most likely you're just playing badly, playing aggressive is not really a style. 

If chess is art, style is the signature of an artist.

Style can be a factor at any level. I used to be known as the guy that plays naked at my local chess club, but then everyone started doing it. And then people stopped playing chess altogether, and the place was remodelled as a swinger club.

I disagree. Just as 2 moves might be equally good, a person who decides on one of preference has chosen cause of his style. Chess openings and there. Differences for example

Now that I think about it I think I just answered my own question

Theres no such thing as 'style' in players of lower ratings. Like for instance the average club player may be good at tactics and aggressive play but weak in positional play. This player is not one with an aggressive style, its just a player with a big loophole in his gameplay (positions where there is no scope for tactics or attacking). Now compare this with a grandmaster. He is well wersed in all types of the game, but has a unique edge over others, or is stronger than other people who are of similar strength overall in the game. Tal for instance was great at attacking and tactics, but was not at all weak in positiona play. 

TL;DR Style is a factor only in games where players are good overall at every aspect of the game.

Unless youre a GM, the only style any of us have is blundering.  

The moment that you are worth anything is the moment that style is not a factor.  Strong GMs have no style, or it's referred to as a "Universal" Style, meaning no one specific style.  They can succeed in wild tactical games or slow, grind-it-out types of games equally well.

Spassky is viewed by many as the first "Universal Player", and pretty much every world champion after that fits that same category.

The moment you label yourself a "Positional", "Tactical", "Aggressive", or "Passive" player is the moment you just labelled yourself a complete chess failure!

You mean like Tal, who was labelled as "Aggressive" and "Tactical" or Petrosian who was labelled "Positional"?  Yeah, good point. 

If you compared Tal to Kasparov or Anand or Carlsen, Tal would be smacked silly!

Well, Tal is not here for us to find out.  But he was World Champion in the modern era.  "Failure at chess" is a silly comentary on that achievement.

Also, even at his height, it was thought by many that he should have been "smacked silly," because his attacks were often unsound under deep analysis.  Yet it couldn't be proved over the board.  That is the essence of style.

Or you could look at what his successors had to say about him.  None said "I'd have smacked him silly," and for the ones that actually played him, they didn't smack him silly--just small plus scores even after he was a sick old man.

Meanwhile, I don't think anyone ever smacked Petrosian silly.

So...style is not failure.  Saying so is silly.

No one is saying style is failure.  The point trying to be made is they are nothing but labels.  And as i posted earlier, anyone under GM trying to say they are "agressive"..."tactical" "positional" "strategical" is wrong, besides being rediculous.  

You may not have said that, but I think he did, since he said  "The moment you label yourself a "Positional", "Tactical", "Aggressive", or "Passive" player is the moment you just labelled yourself a complete chess failure!"

Now, if he meant literally that *you* should not label *yourself*, then I probably agree there are better things to do with your chess time.  But from his overall text, it doesn't appear he meant that (even though you may have meant that).

Seeing below average players dropping pieces, missing simple tactics, and not following opening principles touting themselves as "agressive" and or "tactical" because they gave a knight away on f7 is embarassing.

I'll buy that, but it's a different point.  OP asked at what point is style not a factor.  It's clearly a factor all the way up to World Championship level.  Meanwhile, sure, class players would be better off worrying about something else.

That's really not true, they do not do "equally well" in all types of games. Not that I can judge, but if it were true then we've been fed absolutely outrageous lies and commentaries about strong GMs over the years.  

Such a thing as a grinder or a tactical GM definitely exists. Thrillerfan, come on, you would want to have never read anything about chess or know anything about GM playing if you really think that. Morozevich the attacker, Carlsen the grinder, Karpov the positional player...

These aren't particularly "styles" but rather players become specialists at things. Like they become specialists at openings, or Carlsen is a specialist at making the most out of the endgame. They get expert knowledge of how to play those things and steer the game the way they want to. So it's like being in a quiz and someone has specialized in history and another person has in science.... but definitely not right to say all GMs can do "equally well" in all types of position.    

style always matters, some people want to play unbalanced positions and look for mates or attacks. Other people will try to accumulate positional advantages and squeeze you. Kasparov vs Karpov, both are great players, but the style is different, same can be said of anyone, do you want to go for complications or avoid them for example.

I dont buy into this "style" stuff.  Not saying thats the correct way of looking at it, its just me :-)  I have never gone into a game worrying about, trying to figure out, or caring how my opponent plays.  All i can do is find the best move i can.  I think when oyu start getting so wrapped up in playing style is starts affecting how you play.  just play the position on the board, and find the best move you can.  

You do not need to worry about your style, but everyone have a style, do you like to play open positions, closed positions, seek tactical solutions or positional solutions, etc. How you handle the positions in one of many possible ways is your style, you could play a style by choice, like seek complications over simplifications, or you could play your natural style.