Will Playing Tactically When my Style is Positional Improve my Chess Skill?

You guys are full of ignorance. Even at the very highest elite level, style is still what you feel comfortable with. If you ask Garry Kasparov, he would say that he wouldn't feel as comfortable playing extremely positionally and not attacking. If you asked Anatoly Karpov, he would say that he wouldn't feel as comfortable launching an immediate attack without making sure that there's absolutely no counterplay.

While a higher rated player will generally be better at everything, he will still feel less comfortable in certain types of positions. It's all relative, there's no denying it.

By the way @IMBacon, you shouldn't be talking. Your account is already over 2 years old yet your highest rating doesn't even surpass 1900.

Is there a 2 year 1900 plan? 

No. Look, I'm not saying that you're bad at chess if you aren't 1900 by year 2, but seriously, don't act like a chess expert if you don't manage to get out of the amateur level by 2 years of playing.

*gulp* how could anybody possibly disagree after all that? 

". Even at the very highest elite level, style is still what you feel comfortable with. "

The usual ignorance. If the position calls for a positional squeeze, followed by a delicate end game, Garry Kasparov or Mikhail Tal are up to the task every time. They've done it at the highest level many rimes. If the opportunity for a brilliant sacrificial attack or a game-winning combination arises, Anatoly Karppov and Tigran Petrosian have dozens of examples in their collected games. It is true that there are stylistic differences between the top GMs, but those are differences in emphasis between players who are masters of tactics and positional play.  Those differences in "style" come from deep understanding. First get the deep understanding, your style will emerge naturally

The bunny hops corrected

Well sure, everyone has preferences.

Preference isn't a style though. Style is having the skill to recognize A and B give approximately equal winning chances, and consistently choosing A.

Preference is "I'm weak in B, so I always choose A even if it's not as good as B."

If Karpov saw an attack gives him good winning chances against you, he'd do it. Similarly Kasparov would grind you down in an endgame.

1900 is advanced, not intermediate.   A 1900 player can beat 99% of all chess players.   It takes many years of study for most players to get to 1900.   Usually only prodigies, who get coaching at a very young age, make it to the IM or GM level.

If you would've read my message completely, something which I understand you people can't do by now, you would've seen that I said that obviously, a higher rated player will be better at everything, but they will still have positions in which they will feel more comfortable. It is the same for beginners, only that in beginner games the discomfort in a certain kind of position translates into blundering, whereas the years of knowledge of a professional stop him from making this mistake, but it will probably not come as natural. It's all relative.  

Almost no one gets to 1900 after only 2 years. It's a pretty absurd benchmark for these forums where no one who posts is on track to be a professional.

You are considered an amateur class A player at 1900. only above 2000 will you be considered an expert.

"but they will still have positions in which they will feel more comfortable."

And they work at getting better at them. Which answers your original question!

How is 1900 after two years absurd? I'm pretty sure that at the beginning of this summer I was 900 and now I am 1500 and I'm only 13. Any adult should be able to reach 1900 after two years if they take chess seriously.

This is what I'm trying to achieve. My question is, is it a good idea to play in something I feel uncomfortable in for the sake of improving that aspect of the game, or is it better to work on it outside of games.

Online ratings are different, and some are easier to get than others. I mean 1900 OTB.

Calling someone with a 1900 chess.com daily rating a class A player is pretty silly

But anyway, you'll realize what's normal improvement and what's not after you're around chess players, go to tournaments, and all that.

I go to tournaments and am around chess players pretty much every day.

Well you have an unrealistic idea of the average rate of improvement.

Now you sound like spongey :-)

I know a 4-year-old who's probably about 1200 level by now...  started out this season.