Positional or Tactical?

What are you styles of play? Are you like Tal or Morphy who were tactical prodigies. Are you like Kasparov and Anand, positionally solid. I personally prefer positional play. But if tactical oppurtunities arise, I will pounce on them like a jungle cat.

So in my playing style I play more positional chess, but eventually if I see a hole, I will exploit it with my tactical play. So what is your style of play? Positional, or tactical?

I wish I could sacrifice like Tal, calculate like Alekhine and plan like Capablanca. Sadly I fail at most of it. Sometimes I play splendid tactical games but the next day I miss an obvious tactic staring right at me. Some days I play like a positional god and next day I make a positional error of 500 centipawns. Some days that 5 move mate really is calculated accurately and I win spectacularly and the next day I miscalculate a 2 ply deep calculation.

But to answer your question:

I think I have more positional understanding then most around my rating. I'm more concerned about my tactical vision and my calculation ability.

Tactics until your rating gets passed 1800.  Then Positional! 

Famous trainer Mark Dvoretsky has quite interesting ideas concerning positional and tactical styles. He argues that while once it was relatively easy to categorize players in this way nowadays hardly any purely tactical or positional players exist among top players. He then suggest that it might be more productive to classify players according to their thinking process: to intuitive and logical players.

As examples of players whose desiccion making is dominated by intuition he mentions Capablanca, Tal, Petrosian and Karpov (I would assume that Magnus Carlsen would also go here). Logical players would include Rubinstein, Botvinik and Kasparov.

Logical players aproach the game very concretely by thinking in disciplined way and calculate variations very accurately but sometimes they miss unexpected ideas and their sense of turning points of the game might be insufficient. Intuitive players have great feel for the game and they are often able to intuitively sense the most promissing move without really explaining themselves why it works. On the other hand intuitive players might not be that good in forming large scale plans, might be lazy in calculating variations and their calculations are not always very accurate. 

It might seem suprising that Tal, who people usually label as a great tactician, might be weak at calculating variations accurately. Dvoretsky, however, argues that Tal's great strenth lied in his abbility to "dream" very suprising tactical ideas that were easily missed by his opponents and in his great courage carrying out the most outlandish ideas. In his game commentaries he often gave long tactical variations with suprising twists but closer inspection reveals  that these variations were not always very accurate and often Tal missed something relatively simple in the begining of a long variation.