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

I love, enjoy tactical e4 openings. But when I need a Win, I play d4 grinding my opponent.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/loves-e4-but-plays-d4-better

"Building a repertoire ... we will take the idealized situation of someone starting from square one ... 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? Next, look at the various openings available, and see which ones fit in with your personal style. ..." - GM John Nunn (1998)

Is IM Jeremy Silman referring to, more or less, the same sort of issue, only without using the word, “style”?

"There is no such thing as a 'best 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)

Did someone put you in charge of deciding the correct usage of chess terminology?

I do not speak for KingSideInvasion, but, do you see a difference between going for the Ruy Lopez and going for the King’s Gambit?

For those with bad memory I recommend memorizing a multiplication table. If 12 x 12 table is too easy, make it a 15 x 15 table.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/tables.html

Of course, weakness is going to be part of the play of a beginner, but what purpose is served by insisting on referring to it all the time? Weaknesses and strengths are part of life for nearly every chess player, and it is only natural for them to talk about them and about possible ways to address them. Is there any reason that they should be obliged to do so using demeaning language chosen by someone else?

In this thread, do you see a specific sentence expressing a specific “illusion” that you would wish to shatter, or is the objection to invented meanings grafted on to what others have written?

"Of course, weakness is going to be part of the play of a beginner, but what purpose is served by insisting on referring to it all the time?"

Because if you want to get better at chess, you need to fix your weaknesses, because that's what's holding you back. Worrying about your "style" is a complete waste of time. If you are missing tactics, or giving yourself a bad bishop all the time, or losing even end games, who care's what your "style" is. Step 1 is to get better at making good moves, your style will find you

Take KingSideInvasion for example. Can you identify a specific sentence indicating a lack of interest in working on weaknesses?

You see the GM Nunn quote above, referring to “style”? Are he (and others) promoting a “complete waste of time”, or is the waste actually in the meaning that you graft onto discussions that mention “style”?

New year, new beginning spongey.  You asked a question, you deserve an answer.

Youre taking what i posted the wrong way.  You have been here long enough to know this has been asked to death.  And i do believe it would be helpful to low rated player if they would learn to be realistic about their abilities.  I get wanting to sound like a better chess player than you are.  But i also think that mind set interferes with improvement.

Just my .02

I did see the Nunn quote, but I'm pretty sure he is referring to players at a higher level. "Style" shows itself when you choose between different good moves. If you can't consistently make good moves, it's ridiculous to worry about your style. If you miss tactics, drop material, make positional blunders, and throw away half-points in the ending, your don't have a style. Get better at chess and your style will find you

Yes. Don’t worry about your style (if it even exists). You cannot make your style, your moves do. It’s all about good moves.

Is there a specific KingSideInvasion unrealistic sentence that you would want to call to our attention?

IMBacon wrote: … I get wanting to sound like a better chess player than you are. ...

Care to try to identify a specific KingSideInvasion sentence that would justify such an accusation?

You do see that he was referring to advice on choosing an opening, right? In GM Nunn's explanation of style, can you identify any specific GM Nunn sentence that you would want to claim as inappropriate for KingSideInvasion to think about?.

Laskersnephew wrote: ... "Style" shows itself when you choose between different good moves. ...

And also in opening choice?

Laskersnephew wrote: ... If you can't consistently make good moves, it's ridiculous to worry about your 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

Laskersnephew wrote: ... If you miss tactics, drop material, make positional blunders, and throw away half-points in the ending, your don't have a style. ...

GM Nunn wrote:  "... 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? ..."

Do you see any reason to doubt that KingSideInvasion has answers to questions of that sort?

Well... I'm playing chess for 50+ years, and it would be a lie to claim that I have a style.

Would it perhaps be better to base your comments on what KingSideInvasion actually wrote?

"... I was wondering, would playing more tactically (tactical openings, more open positions) improve my overall chess game, or would it be better to stick to what I feel comfortable? ..."

Anything wrong with wondering about that?

You seem to be under two delusions: 1) That this discussion needs a moderator to direct us, and that moderator should be you. 2)That reposting the same long quotations over and over again in multiple forum topics constitutes valuable input.  In the course of a long and lively discussion, The OIP's question has been addressed, along with a lot of other topics. And you have cited the same John Nunn partial quotation many, many times

But you definitely have a beard.   And that's what counts.