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

The fear of losing games and ratings points by not  playing aggressive or tactical isn't helpful. The Joy of amateur chess is outplaying the other in Tactics. Leave Positional chess to the Professionals.

Ok, but some of us don't speak French and I think this is an English-only message board.   lol   This is just my opinion, but I'd rate the categories something like this:  0-1000 beginner, 1000-1400 novice, 1400-1800 intermediate, 1800-2200 advanced, 2200-2600 Master and 2600-3000 Grandmaster

I mean 1800 elo is a strong club player in my town anyway(Canada here).

Well some expression are not easy to be translated in english so....

Montreal of course!and you?

lol,it's not dirty now

You should see our brand new bridge:it costed 4.5 bilions.

https://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2019/10/04/le-pont-samuel-de-champlain-illumine-en-bleu

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/673669/denis-lebel-poul-ove-jensen-pont-champlain

And to the same question, Karpov replied he had no style. Assuming @kindaspongey is right Karpov should have asked Nakamura and @kindaspongey before answering.

Moreover, in Nakamura's reply, there's this "I like", meaning how he feels about solving certain kinds of problems and not that he solves chess problems by the way he feels. Therefore, no "style" but replying within a context.

This thread began on how to improve in chess. In such a context, it's useful to know that even top GMs have to work with their own lack of objectivity, in certain situations, due to their own preferences, tastes, and mood, as subjectivity is regarded as a defect. Then it makes no sense to perpetuate the defective idea that players can deal with chess problems following one method or another based on their own preferences rather than submitting to the position's inner logic.

You think Nakamura and/or I said something about whether or not Karpov has a style? 

Nicator65 wrote:  … Moreover, in Nakamura's reply, there's this "I like", meaning how he feels about solving certain kinds of problems and not that he solves chess problems by the way he feels. Therefore, no "style" but replying within a context. ...

In the above quote, what is your explanation of Nakamura's first two words?

Nicator65 wrote:  ... it makes no sense to perpetuate the defective idea that players can deal with chess problems following one method or another based on their own preferences rather than submitting to the position's inner logic.

In this thread, do you see a specific sentence where it was maintained "that players can deal with chess problems following one method or another based on their own preferences rather than submitting to the position's inner logic"?

@kindaspongey: Asking a question isn't a refutation as you're not saying if you agree or disagree. Not to mention that your questions don't contribute to clarify the matter.

Now, in your quoting Nakamura never said he has a tactical style but that he likes to play tactics, therefore his openings systems choices. In other words, he's saying that his tactical mastery gives him better results than his positional or endgame mastery. That said, after disastrous results against Carlsen he switched into solid systems when facing him, improving his results.

If you say Karpov has a positional style I will understand what you mean (no matter if Karpov himself says he hasn't a style), but within a pedagogical context, it's wrong to speak of tactical or positional styles because the students then believe these styles work like an adjustable spanner.

I did understand that. However, it wasn't my personal preference but general knowledge on the freeing 15...d5 in Carlsen–Anand, 2012. I believe you weren't aware of the more than a century of experience with such positions, where White not only can't prove an advantage but risks a difficult heavy pieces ending due to his weakened King's position. Carlsen, well aware of that, went after complications and, after Anand's mistake on move 19th, built a pretty nice winning idea. I believe it was GM King who came with the idea that Black's mistake was 15...d5 (after he failed to properly calculate 19...f6 –instead of 19...fxe6– during a transmission). Therefore I could understand why, at first glance, someone may think of 15...d5 as a mistake, but had limited patience when, after showing him the variations, he still insisted on 15...d5 as a mistake.

I have an ex-girlfriend named Maria who lives in Montreal.  Small world.  

"Very tactical."

Nicator65 wrote:  ... within a pedagogical context, it's wrong to speak of tactical or positional styles because the students then believe these styles work like an adjustable spanner.

Do you have an estimate of the number of days that are likely to go by without you identifying a specific sentence that would be likely to cause readers of this thread to believe that tactical or positional styles work like an adjustable spanner?

Should you have some experience playing chess at different levels you wouldn't even ask that.

Non-masters that see themselves as "tacticians" seek to open up the position and or create all sorts of unbalances, no matter the concessions involved (sometimes they aren't even aware they're making concessions). Those believing they're "positional" tend to disregard piece activity as if the rival somehow also agreed to play only on building on small advantages. All of these happen regardless of this thread. But if someone asks how to improve in chess, and to clarify some concepts is a must in the answer, I fail to see why it has to bother you.

Wrong. An amateur knows some basic positional concepts and can play using then. For example pawn structure, you can oblige your opponent, in some position, to double pawns then weakens his position. It is not needed to be Karpov for that.

same