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

Not really.  Karpov is 40 years past his prime.   

I think the point is positional play is something you have in long term memory, not something borne from calculation.

Old age diminishes working memory and calculation, but not knowledge like positional play.

Unfortunately if your working memory and calculation is less, you can be beaten by a less knowledgeable opponent simply because their performance is higher. This is why we get world champs in their young 20s like Tal, Kasparov, and Carlsen. They're not world champs because they know more. Chess is a performance game even at "long" time controls like FIDE classical games that last 5 to 7 hours.

Although sometimes it's possible to have a choice between a calm or a dynamic game, most of the time the player has to choose the right plan and the right move regardless of his personal preferences, strengths, and weaknesses.

Whenever the player goes subjective rather than following what the position demands, he's making a mistake that can be punished. That's why most seasoned players nowadays will say there's no positional or tactical style, but –most likely– a weakness in the form of lack of objectivity when assessing a position.

What may be confusing is that some opening systems tend to lead the game into a slower acquisition of small advantages while others create all sort of unbalances and tactical possibilities. Then, when a player is inclined to slower or dynamic systems, he's wrongly tagged as positional or tactical when all we can be certain of is that in some games he chooses to increase the possibilities of having to solve problems in one way or another.

What about when a person is choosing an opening? Is there anything about the starting position that "demands" a particular opening?

"... Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.
For example, 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

Did someone put you in charge of deciding the correct usage of "positional" and "tactical"?

@kindaspongey Simply put, a player has to do what he's supposed to do –according to the position– rather than what he wants to.

Take your post for instance. You do not contradict what I wrote but argue on my qualifications to post about chess. It can be deduced that since you don't know much about the subject then you're trying to start a long exchange of personal remarks for the sake of posting and arguing endlessly. But since you don't contradict then you agree with the post, hence your personal remark serves no purpose other than satisfying your emotional state of mind, and as the readers will take no benefit from improving it then it'll be a waste of our time.

Back to the topic, take your previous question in #393: "What about when a person is choosing an opening? Is there anything about the starting position that "demands" a particular opening?"

... which was already answered in #392 with: "What may be confusing is that some opening systems tend to lead the game into a slower acquisition of small advantages while others create all sort of unbalances and tactical possibilities. Then, when a player is inclined to slower or dynamic systems, he's wrongly tagged as positional or tactical when all we can be certain of is that in some games he chooses to increase the possibilities of having to solve problems in one way or another."

This can be clarified with, for example, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d6, when choosing 3.dxe5 leads to a Queen–less middlegame while 3.Nf3 goes into the more studied –and sturdier– Philidor defense. Now, regardless of the path chosen by White, it's not that because he began the game with 1.e4 then he has –or is allowed– to play tactically from move 4 onwards, as both 3.dxe5 and 3.Nf3 lead to restricted but solid positions for Black. However, due to Black's initial lack of space for active development, most of White's best plans in both lines are about threatening to open up the position, thus immediately transforming the game into a tactical battle, which ordinarily Black mustn't accept in early stages. So, there's no style but understanding which sets of tools are required to solve the problems at hand (and to increase the skill when handling each).

The answer to the OP's actual question is a very simple and obvious yes! Becoming a better tactical player will enormously increase you chess skill. And while studying tactics will help, the only way to really improve is through play, when no one is telling you "white to play and win." It's only when you start searching for your own tactical opportunities, doing your own calculations, and experiencing your own victories and defeats, that you will see a big improvement. And who knows? When you become a stronger and more confident tactician, it me turn out that your "style" will no longer be exclusively positional. You may get a whole knew enjoyment out of chess by being a more rounded player.

CJS Purdy is regarded by many people, including Bobby Fischer, as one of the very best chess writers. Here are two of his thoughts: "A fine positional player who is not also a master of tactics is doomed to a life of chess disappointment."  "Doubled pawns, good and bad bishops, knight outposts, all these things matter, but only if there is no tactic in the position!"

One of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated on chess players is the notion that they have a style while they are still weak players. At your level, every game is decided by tactics. Improving your tactics will improve your game. Every strong positional player in the game's history excelled at tactics.

Tal could play some beautiful "positional" chess.

Petrosian could play some wicked tactical games.

Labels belong on clothes.  Play the board, not the player, not the rating.  Find the best move you can regardless of "style".

I pretty much agree with both #397 and #398, but that's a battle for another day! I just want to encourage the OP to work harder on the tactical side of his game. There's no way that won't make you a better player!

And there is never a shortage of battles to be fought here.

Ok, I'll start playing the irish gambit.

Sorry, you've been mislead.

It may be better to study which tactical positions some plans are aiming for as well as their resolving methods. And more useful if such studies go around the opening systems we play often or feel more comfortable with.

It's desirable to see it all and understand it all in any situation but, from a practical point of view, it makes sense to focus on the systems we play often. I recall a game between Anand vs. a FM; the FM was White and played a Smith–Morra Gambit. The FM had the ideas and tactics that well studied that although Anand equalized he couldn't achieve any sort of advantage, not even in the ending, and the game ended in a draw.

I do not see anywhere in there where you claimed that the starting position demands a particular opening. Until you do so, it seems to me that we have no reason to doubt that a player's choice of opening is a problem that might be resolved by the sort of questions suggested for consideration by GM John Nunn (and others). GM John Nunn (and others) have referred to such questions as a consideration of style.

"... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. If you like to attack and you are not afraid of sacrificing and taking risks choose sharp gambit openings. If you prefer a quiet game, then there are relatively calm openings for you. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

Incorrect. I referred specifically to the issue of correct usage of "positional" and "tactical". I have no reason to doubt your ability to write authoritatively on many aspects of chess, but as for as I know, there is no generally accepted single authority for chess terminology, and there seems to be variation in usage from one person to another. Consequently, there seems to be no grounds for a belief that people are obliged to comply with what you believe to be correct usage.

you always get stronger when you work on the weakest part of your game. so that should answer your question. 

Do you see any reason to doubt that KingSideInvasion has answers to questions of the sort mentioned by GM John Nunn?

"Building a repertoire … The first step is to think about your personal style. Do you prefer open, tactical positions or closed, strategic positions? Does an attack on your king make you nervous, or are you happy so long as you have a counter-attack? Do you prefer main lines, or something slightly offbeat? ..." - GM John Nunn (1998)

If only it would...

Are you one of the ones who has told people that there is no best opening?

"... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. If you like to attack and you are not afraid of sacrificing and taking risks choose sharp gambit openings. If you prefer a quiet game, then there are relatively calm openings for you. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin