I would suggest: even for strong players it is a very bad idea to try to define one's style. Karpov: 'style? I have no style?' If this philosophy is good enough for him, it is so for the rest of us. If you want some deeper guidance on this, try Rowson's Chess for Zebras. There is plenty there on the roles we create for ourselves, and the necessity of escaping such roles in order to improve. Solve tactical exercises, study strong players' positional decisions, choose openings which result in a fair variety of positions - and gradually you will find yourself more comfortable in some types of position than others and begin to seek these more often. But there is no such thing as, say, a 'positional player'. Have a look at Kasparov's notes to the games of that 'positional master' Petrosian - no shortage of concrete variations justifying the manoeuvres. I think: the less you define yourself, the more potential you will have to improve.

Davies meant that 10. b3 was leading up to a pawn sacrifice (the way Christiansen played it), after 10...Ne8 11. Qd2 Nd6 12. Ba3.

I dont see the pawn sac - as the rook on a1 is protected white gets bishop and knight for pawn and rook. In the resulting position white is material up (!) and is about to win on the dark squares.

Sounds strange 

Quote:

You should compare this to the benko gambit for black:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 
As white you gain space on the queenside, open the fianchetto on b2 and try to isolate the somehow to far moved pawn on d4. Black will try to conquer the center - and as a ususal in the Reti white tries to destroy the center ("coiled spring method") and finally press Black back and win.

Quote:

To be successfull you need an universal style  Tactics are the basic - you have to be ready to get your "hands dirty" to win a game, even if you only want to play positional - but chess is so marvelous, that positional play alone doesnt win. I try to enjoy all kinds of positions I get and do my best (trying to make the best move). Jonathan Rowson talks about "the flow" in his books - just play, enjoy and be part of the game.

Well~ first I want to ask about the game Christiansen-Movsziszian, Germany 1994:

In the game 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 g6 3. d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.e4 Bg7 6.Nc2 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8. Be2 B6 9.0-0 Bb7 10.b3 

According to the book, The dynamic Reti, which I bought recently, the author wrote:
A very interesting treatment which involves a pawn sacrifice.

Black's next move is Ne8.
However, I don't understand what white will get after sacrifice a pawn.    For example: after 10...Nxe4, how white respond?  I only see that white will have the trouble to deal with the pin of the bishop on g7 through a1-h8 diagonal.

Also I want to ask where I can find more information and buy a book that deal with the move order: 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4
The book I bought which focus on other lines then 3.b4.  However I am more interesting on 3.b4 but I have a hard time to find information and sufficient idea about the third move.

Second I want to ask is that how do you identify your own style?
It sounds silly but I have a hard time to identify my own.  For all I know is that we categorize players into three styles: strategic, tactical, and positional. 
 
I don't know do we have three more styles we use on categorizing players.  But I want to know how because I am trying to find the opening that fits my style.  I have been tried a lot of opening but I still feel them not good for me.