The position makes demands on the player, not the opposite.
If the position requires an attack to maintain the advantage, then a strong player will attack. If the position requires slow maneuvering, then that's what a strong player will do.
There are many games where Karpov wins with an attack, or Kasparov wins with technical endgame play. Their reputations, and the idea of style, only manifests when there's a choice. IF you can pursue a winning advantage with a sacrifice leading to a prolonged middlegame initiative, OR trade into a technical endgame with good winning chances, that's when a player shows his type.
Notice, however, that Kasparov and Karpov can make these choices, because they know how to do both. If you only know how to do one, you're just a weak player who hasn't studied all parts of the game yet.
I have come to the realization that there are two kinds of chess players. One is the pictorial/aesthetic/positional player, and the other is the tactical/calculating/attacking player. The first one strives for a harmony of the pieces and overall pressure against the opponent. He is quick to see how to maneuver the pieces to keep maximum flexibility and how to make the opponent's position seem fickle and toothless in opposition to his own setup. He will then strike at the right moment and claim the win. These players are highly sensitive about their pawn structures.
The other tactical person plays move by move. He sees tactics and combinations and is not averse to laying a trap for the opponent. He will often calculate more and better than the opponent and will have quick and early success due to his superior mastery of the fine art of calculation. These players are highly sensitive about piece activity. They will even play a piece down if their pieces are all in attacking squares.
Do you agree with this and what are your thoughts?
I would put Alekhine, Morphy, Judit Polgar and Kasparov in the second category. Whereas Capablanca, Petrosian,Smyslov and Karpov would be the aesthetic players.