The Question of Chess Style

I've always been of the opinion that players should take a "1. find the best move, 2. play it" attitude to chess and never really been convinced that one should pay much attention to style. But I've come to realize that a players style, or at least what they percieve their style to be, has an undeniable effect on the decisions they make at the board.

 Personally I have always thought of myself as a more positional type of player and have a certain distaste for the tactical slugfests that beginners usually relish. I'm the type of player who enjoys slow positional struggles, strategical endgames, the Berlin wall etc. I'm not one to shy away from exchanging pieces to exploit an advantage, however small (and however ineptly I may go about it sometimes), and often when in a bad middlegame position I will steer toward simplification believing my superior positional ability will rescue the half-point.

However, from time to time I've noticed that there can be a real aggressive streak to my play and I can be very successful when playing that way. That raises the question whether the view I have of my own style is a wrong one and causing me to make suspect decisions.

What is my chess style? Should I continue playing the way I am and hope everything becomes clearer in the future? Should I change my philosophy? Should I play a more objective game, like a computer? Or do I already play objectively and that's why I'm experiencing this chessic schizophrenia?

 This introspection would probably work better as a blog post but it's here now and you're stuck with it. Does anyone have experience of similar soul-searching or anything else to add to the discussion? 

That would be true if one were able to perform a perfect and completely objective evaluation of a position, which is not possible for a human with boatloads of preferences, biases, past experiences and all the advices, good or bad, a player might have been given over the years influencing the decision.

I'm not making any judgements on what my style actually is, or what method of play would suit me best. I'm just saying that for two years since I started playing chess, I have believed my style to be more on the positional/strategic end of the spectrum and that has definitely influenced my play.

I think style CAN be a weakness, but not necessarily. For example, if you get into a position that allows you to A.) start a kingside attack or B.) weaken your opponents q-side pawns and pressurize them for the rest of the game, the choice is a matter of style (theoretically, of course it depends on the position, but for this example we must assume the two choices offer roughly the same prospects of winning). 

I must say though, you can't always steer the position into the waters you prefer (positional/tactical), so you must be able to play both efficiently. However, it's perfectly fair to say you prefer one over the other, and that when given the choice you try to steer play towards your preference. That is style.

listen to Karpov: "Let us say the game may be continued in two ways: one of them is a beautiful tactical blow that gives rise to variations that don't yield to precise calculation; the other is clear positional pressure that leads to an endgame with microscopic chances of victory.... I would choose the latter without thinking twice. If the opponent offers keen play I don't object; but in such cases I get less satisfaction, even if I win, than from a game conducted according to all the rules of strategy with its ruthless logic.

[edit]