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

... Playing purely tactical in a headless chicken kind of way won't help your overall understanding and won't make you a better player. Keep playing the way you are, you'll still face tactical complications. If you feel like playing a sharper game then go ahead.

Tactical sharpness comes and goes but it's the true understanding of chess that stays.

Honestly...I do think Neal Pert is the best, but its been a running joke between myself and a friend.  Thats why i go to my favorite Phil Collins.  I also think Chester Thompson, and Gene Krupa are right up there too.

Quora would bring 99% of the posters here to tears.

"... 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

Compliance is a poor choice of words because it implies there is no mutual agreement. ... I have ideas and justifications that you demean by using the word compliance, and that is one of the reasons why I say you seem to have a problem with me stating my opinion.

---

As for all the people whining about word choice not being useful for KingSideInvasion, I agree. You'll notice on the first page, post #8, I gave advice I thought was helpful without quibbling about word choice.

A day later though, after I feel like good advice has been given, I'm willing (here and other places) to go off topic and talk about other things, but certainly I agree with your point that these semantic tirades aren't helpful to anyone.

My understanding is that one can comply because of agreement. My use of "compliance" does not indicate a problem with your right to argue your point. However, if you start telling someone how "style" is used, I think it is appropriate to raise the question of whether or not you have a reason for someone to use "style" as you believe that it should be used.

Your posts are already long-ish due to your copious quoting...it would be nice if you (and others) could learn how to cull the excessive indented comments from your replies

At least I try.

IIRC the quote tower I removed he added back in with his next reply.

Silman is talking more about expanding your opening repertoire to include dynamic openings, as opposed to playing the London System or Colle. He isn't advising to take on wild tactics as OP is suggesting.

… Your posts are already long-ish due to your copious quoting...it would be nice if you (and others) could learn how to cull the excessive indented comments from your replies, especially when it's a half-page of nested comments and a 1-2 line reply from you.  I'm purposely leaving the nested comments in to help show how annoying it is to see these walls of nested comments posted serially.

In view of the language that KingSideInvasion actually used

{"... playing more tactically (tactical openings, more open positions) ... play open, tactical positions such as gambits and such, ... play more tactical games ..."},

I would not conclude that there was necessarily much of a difference between what KingSideInvasion had in mind and what IM Silman had in mind when he referred to

"more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices".

Indeed. Happy New Year's guys! As it is, spongey is most definitely the Ultimate anti-bot here on chess.com., in my opinion. Obviously, he's unique in that he rarely gives his own insight using his own words: but provides us with good service words, phrases, links of acknowledged prose. bIn relation to the topic at hand. Informative & helpful in a lot of circumstances. Kudos to him🤙🏼

There's no such thing as compliance in normal conversation. People disagree and then argue their point. I argued mine, and you seem to have difficulty accepting I have the right to do that.

Meanwhile you continue to fail to argue your point. You quote others not as supporting evidence, but as your whole case.

For example a reasonable person would give this kind of reply:  "John Nunn talks about having style in his book ____ which is aimed at beginners. Therefore I think it's fair to say beginners have style, and at the very least it's unreasonable to attack beginners for claiming they have a style."

And then I might say:  "colloquially yes, beginners have style, and in some sense it's unfair to beginners that so many in this topic have treated that phrasing as a grave sin. Even so, there is a legitimate distinction to be made between style and preference -- between actions borne from knowledge and actions from ignorance."

This is an example of how a normal conversation might develop.

If someone agreed to use "style" as you feel that it should be used, then it seems to me that it would be reasonable to refer to that as compliance. Consequently, if you have told someone else how "style" is used, then it seems to me to be appropriate to wonder if you have a reason for people to be obliged to be in compliance with the confident assessment of Chebyshevv.

Chebyshevv wrote:  ... I argued [my point], and you seem to have difficulty accepting I have the right to do that.

Since you identify no specific sentence as giving you this impression, I am unable to say much about your misperception.

Chebyshevv wrote:  ... I might say:  "... in some sense it's unfair to beginners that so many in this topic have treated that phrasing as a grave sin. Even so, there is a legitimate distinction to be made between style and preference -- between actions borne from knowledge and actions from ignorance." ...

KingSideInvasion was considering opening choice. If it is okay for GM John Nunn (and others) to refer to "style" in connection with that subject, then I fail to see any reason for KingSideInvasion to be in compliance with your views on distinctions to be made.  You can make such distinctions if you like, but I do not see how it helps with the question concerning the choice of openings for KingSideInvasion.

Silman is talking more about expanding your opening repertoire to include dynamic openings, as opposed to playing the London System or Colle. He isn't advising to take on wild tactics as OP is suggesting.