Different player types - please explain!

I've often read things similar to these quotes:

"If you are tactical then you should concentrate on openings that get your pieces out the fastest."

""tactical" (they attack directly, relying on their skill in calculating forcing variations) and "positional" (they block the position and maneuver slowly, hoping that long-range planning ability will be the deciding factor)."

Tactical or positional, are these the two types there is? Or is there a third? Sub-categories?

Do you have any examples of players who are extreme in one way or another, which would be good to observe to fully understand the differences of the playing styles?

And, most interesting of all, how do I decide which kind of playing is the right type for me?

Do positional players often prefer to play 1. d4 as white, while tactical players prefer 1. e4, generally?

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/types-of-chess-players

Until youre a master, you have no style. 

I definitely understand the point of this quote but it is quite untrue, even begineers have a style of play, and it is not as clear cut as tactical or positional, there is a lot of different styles but it is hard to describe them with one word.

Also when Carlsen was an IM he played some very tactical masterpieces and that seemed to be his style, so someone as good as him hadn't really taken to his style until well into his prime

e4 and d4 are both agressive positional moves so neither one really defines a style of play. That said I do think that attacking masters sometimes do have a prefrence for e4. Tal was an e4 player, so was Kasparov for most of his games. Most of the romantic era players liked e4 as well.

I get what youre saying, and honestly this topic has been done to death, but what hasnet here :-) 

Every beginner thinks they are tactical, and thats to be expected, as beginners are taught to play e4 - open games.  But that doesnt mean that a beginner that drops pieces, and misses 1 move mates is a "tactical" player. 

Just like players that play slow boring positional chess, but still drop pieces, and miss simple mates, say they are "positional" players. 

I think we tend try and label ourselves to much, we pigeon hole our abilities, and talk ourselves into self-defeating things that prevent us from fully growing in tis game. 

If you want to have a style, then it shouold be whatever style is needed at the time.  As Bruce Lee said...be like water.

Thanks for all the answers! I understand if you're all tired of beginner-questions like this.

I don't feel the need of labeling myself, but I thougt that if I somehow can understand what kind of play is my cup of tea, that would help me in my progress. Then I can try to steer the game to a position I feel comfortable with. Guess it's just to keep on playing, analysing my games and try to see a pattern, what is good for me and what is not. What do I need to practise more.

But I still wish I could watch games and see the different styles and strategies. Maybe I can, in a few years from now!

What I learned is that e4 lead to more open positions, with faster and more aggressive play, while d4 is more closed and slow. So my idea was that defensive (positional?) players rather choose d4. Is positional players more defensive and less aggressive then tactical players?

There are openings that are extremely temposensitive races such as the Accelerated Dragon versus the Yugoslavattack,

and there are slower openings.

I would like you who knows to tell more about it, because I am a novise.

I am looking for some opening where I as black can survive into the endgame against both e4 and d4. Against e4 i believe Caro-Cann is slow and fine, but here I have played som much Sicilian variants that I feel comfortable with the Sicilians. Against d4 I have started learning Kings Indian Defence, but i think it is difficult, maybe because I only tried for half a year.

Please dont apologize for asking a question, thats how we learn :-) 

 I only brought it up because it just seems that so many beginners want to label themselves a certain style of play.  I say, just learn, and study the whole game.  Enjoy yourself, and have fun! 

Deciding youre a certain type of player, and only studying that side of chess,and ignoring the other only limits yourself.  Onviously we all prefer a way of playing, but still study the entire game. 

Humorous note on this...I have a student that is currently rated 500.  hes a good kid, and has fallen love with tactics.  The only problem, is that he as many people at that level think sac'ing a bishop for the f7/f2 pawn with no followup is being tactical.