I may be a flyer in the database, but tactics training has helped me a lot. My chess skill imo are lopsided. I have poor tactical ability and what I know and understand in other areas does not help me remove my opponents material off the board while retaining mine.

Possibly as much as tactics training was learning how to slow down and take more time. I would play a thirty minute otb game and have 21 minutes left after I was soundly thrashed by a player with better tactics ability than I have. I still get thrashed, but not as soundly if I take my time and think before I act. 

TT is great but quite a few of them are incorrect. Much more than on chess tempo etc..

Are you sure that you are born in Greece? Because evidently there is no connection with the great philosophers of the past, the one which created skepticism. The OP had a skeptical question, most of the people here are making fun of him, without bringing anything real to support their opinion, apart a bunch of anecdotal evidence.

I do understand the other bunch of patzers, supporting the idea of tactic training, because evidently they would have done the same also in school. Not having enough brain to do anything else, but repeat as parrots.

However, since we should live in a scientific age, and skepticism is the way to think, let me ask you this: could you mention the tactic puzzle book used for learning by: Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Chigorin, Rubinstein, etc?

Of course we all know that Fischer had a computer which connected him to chess.com and played tactics all day long on TT.

Maybe if some of those school coaches would like to make an experiment, it would be interesting to try two different groups of players, one studying tactics, and the other studying only endgames, and see how they fare in tournaments. Maybe we could discover that those studying endgames are better and stronger players, showing that studying tactics is a waste of time (ops, am I plagiarising Capablanca?).

Please God save me from those who don't have doubts, and believe to know the truth.

It's a given pre computer age there was no fast track to learning. However that does not make tactics or focused computer learning wrong. If there were computers and tactics training there may have been more masters around. As it was, success was limited to those who learned best using the type of tools available.

 There are four basic ways we learn. Some people are visual, some tactile on, others book learners, etc. Of those types of learning styles, one method is our own preferred learning style. Because a learning method does not work for a few individuals does not mean it is not good for others. 

Your experiment has been completed and the results are in. For some people tactics are the faster road to success, for others studying end games, openings, etc, others need a different type of focused training, sometimes with and other times without computer assistance.

It seems obvious if there were more ways to learn chess there would have been more masters than there were.

It really seems very simple. Tactics are one of the prime elements of chess.  The better one understands tactics, the better a player one will become.  There are other elements too, but honing tactical skill, however one does it, is not only important, but necessary.

If only I knew a good way to study realistic endgames!  (not just 7 man endgames but normal kinds with a lot of pawns and a few pieces on the board).  Tactics puzzles are widely available but I don't know where to solve and study "endgame puzzles."

I've been studying tactics using the Chess.com tactics program and ChessTempo.com tactics program heavily for about a month now. My tactical ability has improved considerably and it has shown in my over all chess improvement. Maybe I'm an exception, but it seems to me that studying tactical puzzles is a definite way to improve your chess strength. Wouldn't call it a scam at all.

But tacticus was a Roman, huh, and apparently also a Greek living in Rome