The mistake here may be to consider that either bot, or indeed any top class human has a recognisable "style" any more. I think this used to be the case before there were bots available, with some players noted for a high risk tactical approach while others played more positionally. Nowadays a well rounded player (or bot) will adapt his, her or its game according to the position and the score. Sometimes all out attack is appropriate, what Lenna might call "dynamic", while another position might require a more passive approach and of course often something in between.
I have hundreds of matches against GBots on file, effectively Gnu 2-ply, and I analyse all of them with XG. There is very little difference in their ability. XG has an edge, but not by much and no noticeable difference in their approach to the game. This is hardly surprising as XG is of course a development of Gnu in any case!
No doubt a better bot will come along in time, but it won't be much better. Also worth noting that Gnu is in any case better than any human already.
Is it possible that a human "style" could actually play better than either bot? In terms of defeating either in the long run, I think not, but in terms of adapting one's cube play and to a lesser extent one's checker play, one can do a great deal better than just slavishly making the "correct" play. This is also true when playing somebody substantially weaker than oneself, but in either case you do have to have some idea of what the benchmark is in order to be able to vary it!
Bots are tools for learning. Real bg is played between humans. Enjoy the game!