Yes, of course. The question is why would you?
'Style' is usually dictated by preference; what type of position you like, what openings variations you like, whether you are better at calculation or intuition, etc. Basically what I'm saying is; the more you play the more your 'style' is decided for you, so changing it seems like either a natural progression or a pointless exercise.
bloodyjack, i am okay with my style. i guess, that's why i play that style. my style in intuitive. i have got a lot of pointers from computers about what do in particular positions, where to apply pressure, how to support pawn breaks. i have also learned a lot from carlsen and from my coach.
my question is, if i expose myself to a different set of players then will my style change. and is it advantageous to do that. i like alekhine and carlsen the most. i don't like capablanca AT ALL. i was thinking maybe looking at games of karpov or smyslov to diversify a bit. is this a good idea.
what are the various different styles and which players fall into which category. i guess getting an exposure to various different players can only help.
also, i have come to realize that houdini running on 24 cores is a really cool machine unfortunately, i think the cost of setting that up is really high. are there good computers of 3000+ elo strength on the web where i can look into different positions.
also, i need to work on my endgame technique. i have improved my middlegame dramatically due to reading euwe and kramer's 'the middlegame' i believe that style evolves as much from what you read as from your own natural ability and style.
i plan to look into various different kinds of players, openings as well as computer software.
any advice would be greatly appreciated and helpful.
Wish I remembered what titled player gave this advice (probably IM Danny Rensch in one of his mad monologues), but here it is: below 2000, players don't have styles, just weaknesses they're trying to avoid dealing with! And yes of course I realize that's such a broad sweeping generalization that it can't be entirely true, but it does make you think, doesn't it?
kasparov could probably say the same thing about danny rensch
"if i expose myself to a different set of players then will my style change. and is it advantageous to do that. i like alekhine and carlsen the most. i don't like capablanca AT ALL. i was thinking maybe looking at games of karpov or smyslov to diversify a bit. is this a good idea."
I suppose your might change in the sense of a 'style shift', but more likely you'll just generally get better at the game; so yes, good idea.
"what are the various different styles and which players fall into which category. i guess getting an exposure to various different players can only help."
Well really style can only be talked about in extremely general and simplified terms like 'active positional', 'universal', 'Karpovian', 'slow positional', 'aggressive general', etc.
But in reality 'style' is unique for almost all players, it's just more fun to categorise people 
Not to mention that style will change drastically depending on the time control. Most players seem to be more universal in correspondence for example.
"any advice would be greatly appreciated and helpful."
Just keep learning and see what sticks.
Wish I remembered what titled player gave this advice (probably IM Danny Rensch in one of his mad monologues), but here it is: below 2000, players don't have styles, just weaknesses they're trying to avoid dealing with! And yes of course I realize that's such a broad sweeping generalization that it can't be entirely true, but it does make you think, doesn't it?
That doesn't make any sense to me, though I get what he's trying to say. He wants to deter novices from saying "I am a positional player therefore I will play d4", but even he has to admit that most players have a definitive style.
If you've ever played someone twice in a live game it will be obvious.
I don't really have either the chess skill or experience to debate this with you BloodyJack, but just in passing, have you noticed how many titled players say "I don't have a style, I just play the board"? On the other hand almost all of us patzers are happy to bend your ear off about our "style"? OK, I've gotta go take a shower and get ready for my root canal. Hope you have a better day than I'm about to.
I don't really have either the chess skill or experience to debate this with you BloodyJack, but just in passing, have you noticed how many titled players say "I don't have a style, I just play the board"? On the other hand almost all of us patzers are happy to bend your ear off about our "style"? OK, I've gotta go take a shower and get ready for my root canal. Hope you have a better day than I'm about to.
Oh man... Good luck with that I guess
But I do have to point one thing out. While yes, titled players do say "I don't have a style, I just play the board" quite often, they are perfectly happy to talk about other titled players styles
(Again I have to clarify that style is really just a collection of attributes governed by preference)
Is it possible to change your style. i know it's good to play against different opponents so you have always have new opening problems to solve. but in general is it possible to totally change your style?