Well, keep in mind that grandmasters are virtuosos-they have mastered all aspects of the game.  Yet each player is entitled to his own personal style-there is nothing wrong with having a style.  In my case, I have an attachment to exciting tactics and vigorous aggression.  My openings are offbeat and dubious.  But I should know how to play position-without that firm, strategic foothold, tactics will never work.  So both should be used harminously, but of course there is nothing wrong with having your own personalized chess style-that's what makest the game fun.  The artistic side of chess is when two players of completely different backgrounds with different methods of training with completely different backgrounds, coaches, and personal lives are thrown together to play a chess game.

Well when it comes to the debate over tactical or positional play the only answer that I have gathered over the years has been both. Without a good position and set up of one's pieces a chess player no, matter how good they are or how strong their tactical play, is able to successfully have a tactical games. And likewise without the aggressive and insightful tactics seen at all levels of play even the most positionally won game can still be lost. So it is in my belief that both of those types of play must be balanced depending on the strength of both players to have a good chess game.

I mean if yoru playing a novice you can throw away positional play and run a rampage on the board and win or you can do the opposite and crush them with pawn structure and piece position but as the quality of the games become better and the ratings of the players become closer and closer it becomes increasingly difficult to rely on just one of these weapons.