Describe White's performance in these two games In these two games, can you describe the performance of White? Whether it was highly tactical, aggressive or positional...etc

 [fen ""]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. d4 Bf5 4. c4 e6 5. dxe6 fxe6 6. Nc3 Bb4 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8.
bxc3 c5 9. Bd3 Qa5 10. Ne2 cxd4 11. Bxf5 exf5 12. O-O dxc3 13. Rb1 O-O 14. Rxb7
Nc6 15. Rb5 Qa6 16. Qd3 Rad8 17. Qxc3 Qc8 18. Be3 a6 19. Rb6 Rf7 20. f3 Re8 21.
Nf4 Ne5 22. Rc1 Qxc4 23. Qxc4 Nxc4 24. Rxc4 Rxe3 25. Rxa6 Rd7 26. a4 Re1+ 27.
Kf2 Ra1 28. h4 Kf7 29. a5 Ng8 30. Rc8 Ne7 31. Rb8 Ra2+ 32. Kg3 Ng8 33. h5 Nf6
34. Rb5 g6 35. hxg6+ hxg6 36. Rbb6 Nh5+ 37. Nxh5 gxh5 38. Rf6+ Kg8 39. Rxf5
Rg7+ 40. Kf4 Rgxg2 41. Rxh5 Rgd2 42. Ke5 Rd7 43. Ke6 Rc7 44. f4 Rg2 45. Rg5+
Rxg5 46. fxg5 Kg7 47. Kd5 Rc1 48. Rb6 Kf7 49. a6 Kg7 50. a7 Ra1 51. Rb7+ Kg6
52. Kc6 Rc1+ 53. Kb6 Ra1 54. Kc7 Kxg5 55. Kb8 Kf4 56. a8=Q Rxa8+ 57. Kxa8 Ke5
58. Rh7 Kd5 59. Kb7 Kc4 60. Rd7 Kc5 61. Rd8 Kb5 62. Rc8 Kb4 63. Kb6 Ka3 64. Kb5
Kb3 65. Rc6 Ka3 66. Kc4 Kb2 67. Kb4 Ka1 68. Rc2 Kb1 69. Kb3 Ka1 70. Rc1# 1-0



[fen ""]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 e6 3. Bf4 Nc6 4. e3 Nh5 5. Bg5 Be7 6. Bxe7 Qxe7 7. c4 Qb4+ 8.
Nc3 Qxb2 9. Nb5 O-O 10. Qb1 Qxb1+ 11. Rxb1 d6 12. Nxc7 Rb8 13. Nb5 d5 14. cxd5
exd5 15. Bd3 Bg4 16. Ne5 Nf6 17. Nxg4 Nxg4 18. Nd6 b6 19. Rc1 Na5 20. Ke2 Rfd8
21. Nb5 Rb7 22. Rc2 g6 23. Rhc1 Kg7 24. Rc7 Rxc7 25. Rxc7 Nxh2 26. Nxa7 Ra8 27.
f3 Nc4 28. Kf2 Nb2 29. Be2 Nc4 30. Bxc4 dxc4 31. Kg1 Nxf3+ 32. gxf3 h6 33. a4
c3 34. Nb5 c2 35. Rxc2 Rxa4 36. Rc7 Kf6 37. Nd6 Ra1+ 38. Kf2 h5 39. Nxf7 b5 40.
Ne5 g5 41. Rc6+ Ke7 42. Rb6 h4 43. Rxb5 Ra2+ 44. Kg1 h3 45. Rb6 Re2 46. d5 Rd2
47. e4 Kf8 48. d6 Kg8 49. Rb8+ Kg7 50. d7 Kf6 51. Re8 h2+ 52. Kh1 Rd1+ 53. Kxh2
Rd2+ 54. Kh3 Rd1 55. d8=Q+ Rxd8 56. Rxd8 Kxe5 57. Kg4 Kf6 58. Rd5 Kf7 59. Kxg5
Ke6 60. f4 Kf7 61. Re5 Kg7 62. Rf5 Kh8 63. Kg6 Kg8 64. e5 Kh8 65. Rf8# 1-0
Well, certainly not highly tactical or aggressive. Both games strike me as rather slow and systematic. You can call that solid, if you like, though the openings seemed to be a bit shaky. 

It seemed to me that you saw the tactical details a lot better than your opponents, which made the games rather onesided. But that is not so much a stylistic difference, but a difference in strength. Of course, more evenly matched games usually give a better impression of a player's style, so next time maybe choose games games where you actually meet some resistance (possibly even lose! ;-)).

Some GMs say that amateurs don't have a style of play. They say a true chess style only develops when you reach master strength. I think that is chauvinistic bullshit. The weaker you are, the stronger personal preferences feature in your choice of moves. To me that is part of the beauty of chess, you can be creative even if you don't know much more than the rules.