Was Fischer Positional of Tactical More in Style?

Thoughts?

(Title to thread should read "or" instead of "of.")  

I've read that Fischer had not a particular style, he just played the best move in every position.

Strategic technical player.  More likely to simply outplay his opponent with clear ideas and superb technique than win with a combination or by making a mess.

Almost all world champions had no particular style: they were universal players.

Sometimes yes, but not quite.

Remember that daredevil Misha Nehemievich still holds the all-time record for the longest game streak without a defeat? This is quite uncharacteristic of an "aggressive" player.

Tal just played rational chess, and his openings were fairly normal- no weird gambits, or dubious stuff of any kind. The only difference was that Tal's sobriety was the other chessplayers' madness...

Fischer had a certain intuitiveness about his style.  He was creative, dynamic, and quite strategic.  His big strength was transitioning from a middle to endgame.  Kasparov was mostly a calculation monster who also had a great strategic understanding, and did nice positional sacrifices. 

While everyone has a certain style like Pfren said they have an excellent and objective grasp of chess.  If a passive defensive move is the only one that holds the win or draw then even Tal would play it (unless the position is sufficiently complex even for them where a bad move seems reasonable and go with the bad move)

This is sometimes referred-to as an "eclectic" style (but yes, the word means "no particular style").

Fischer was a Universal player. (As was Spassky, for that matter.) He believed "style" equalled "weakness." That is, there was something you weren't good at. And he strove to eliminate that from his game.

Bobby had some tactical brilliancies, (much like most any top level grandmaster) but it was his endgame technique which made his Soviet opponents more nervous than anything.

If Stockfish has a style, that's what Fischer's style was.

lol the soviet opponents were ok spassky had a change to win ( watch documentary if he wanted he won by default fisher was quiting) because fisher was whinnig for everything.so he agreed like a man he did all the fisher wanted.played like a man.on the other hand fisher pussy did not played vs 15 years old karpov.the history noted all like alekhine pussied from capablanca and refused to play him for championship

As Fischer said, he always tried to play the best move.  

Karpov wanted to play Fischer when Karpov was 15 ?!  Thats news to me ! That would have been 1966 ?  

Alekhine simply demanded that Capablanca jump through the same hoops that he was required to jump through to get the first match with Capa and Capa didn't or couldn't ... thus , no rematch .  Kasparov talks about this in his great predecessor books .