Positional vs Tactical

A book I am reading, Rapid Chess Improvement by Michael de la Maza points out something interesting.  He writes that you will learn many positional concepts by studying tactics.  Tactical study is not strictly for attack; it helps you know what to avoid when defending.  If you can't see combinations coming at you, how can you defend your position?  Positional study is not strictly for defense.  The two go together like a hand and a glove.  I see studying tactics as a road to improvement.

It's fairly clear from masters of chess that you need to have tactical *and* positional skill to win at the highest levels of chess.

Where I think you can still draw a distinction between tactical and positional players is how they manipulate the position.  It's subtle, but tactical players may sacrifice a piece to open up tactical opportunities (see any one of a large number of Tal games), whereas positional players are more likely to make sneaky exchange sacrifices or other positionally-charged maneuvres (see any one of a large number of Petrosian games).

There are surely countless situations in which an opponent may cause a weakness in their position by moving a piece or pawn, where there exist both a tactical and positional reply.  If neither is especially more correct than the other, the choice is a tactical/positional preference.