Memorizing doesn't have to be bitter. I find it fun learning all of the openings, their ideas, etc. People are different. So stop using that "I don't want to memorize because it's boring so that's why I am so bad at chess" excuse, it's not.
Well, memorizing is really bad if it was alone.
Try this: do a tactic (a chess.com Puzzle); at the end, click the "Practice vs Computer" button and (try to) convert the resulting so-called "clearly winning" position against Max3200. Study the whole thing - so to your question I'd say quality over quantity. Another follow on activity - what was the opponent's actual best move before the tactic precipitating blunder? Another variation (which helps me in an area I struggle in), solve the puzzle with the board turned around. Here's another thing to do, look at the puzzle's comment board (granted this is usually a minor waste of time), as very occasionally there is good discussion, or you can try to write something helpful to another puzzler, which sometimes clarifies one's own thinking.
Hi, I'm currently 1800 in blitz and 1900 in bullet.
My question is how much can tactical training really help me? Can it help me get to 2400+?
I'm 25 and would like to one day stop being a scrub. Am I too old? How many tactical puzzles do I need to complete per day? I rarely ever train tactics.
If you really want to get better at chess, work on your chess. Look through databases. Study games that align with your repertoire. Analyze positions that you don't understand.
Tactical puzzles are a nice supplement, to help keep you sharp. But they aren't intended to be an overall replacement for actual study and review.
Here's an idea. Lets stay focused and work on answering the OP's question. And lets see if we can stop attacking each other. Just because you are sitting behind a monitor, and no one that you're interacting with can see you doesn't give you the right to act like a jerk.
Be a decent human being and act the way you would if the person was right in front of you.
Kinda sad, I like arguments. Well, I guess this is enough arguments between them at least. I agree too in this
@ChesswithNickolay
I have nothing against you personally. And I wish you to recover. And I even wish you to become a better chess player. If you'll be better than me at some point, fine, do it. I'll be happy if you'll be better at chess.
But I don't understand why to LIE about your chess level? It's not a problem to be as you are. If I'm 2100 I'm not saying that "I'm 2300" or something like that. Why you're doing that?
(Argument popped out!)
Here's an idea. Lets stay focused and work on answering the OP's question. And lets see if we can stop attacking each other. Just because you are sitting behind a monitor, and no one that you're interacting with can see you doesn't give you the right to act like a jerk.
Be a decent human being and act the way you would if the person was right in front of you.
Kinda sad, I like arguments. Well, I guess this is enough arguments between them at least. I agree too in this
Nothing wrong with a constructive argument. But arguing for the sake of arguing servers no purpose. Whether you believe someone is a certain playing strength can be discussed between the two people involved. There is no need to openly discuss it here when it has nothing to do with the OP's question.
And yes i understand that no one else will be bale to see what you are arguing over. And for some that is not what they want.
Sorry when I said “I agree too in this”, I meant I agree what you have said. I am not sure if you misunderstood, or you just wanted to say this for me in general.
OP take 1,000 lessons like i have & your positional skills will improve... really it's just about assimilating a plethora of general strategic ideas to work with while planning:
'control the center', 'pay attention to king safety', 'try to avoid creating weaknesses', 'develop all of your pieces', 'exchange off bad bishops', etc. etc...
also, goldenbuzzer has a legit 4,000+ puzzle rating so i'm not surpised that he won a game tactically;
my pb is 3600 & i can certainly attest that there are many unexpected side benefits to your chess skill that come from pursuing at least a 3000 rating while taking your time & going over the ones you miss.
I'm going to be playing a few rapid games up to 1800 to solve this dilemma. Yes I lost a game but I'm just rolling through the pairings quickly so I'm just playing "whatever" moves until I get to a stronger level.
You just won 4 games in a row in rapid
Yea I lost the first game, oiling the gears.
This is getting annoying. I keep staring at your profile picture hoping to get some…
I'm going to be playing a few rapid games up to 1800 to solve this dilemma. Yes I lost a game but I'm just rolling through the pairings quickly so I'm just playing "whatever" moves until I get to a stronger level.
But it's true that it's better to play longer time controls if you wanna improve at chess.
Analyze accurately every your game. Explain to yourself every inacuraccy based on general chess principles. The best way to improve is to make mistakes and learn from them.
I see ok, that's another thing I struggle with, how to actually learn from my losses and analyse my own games...
This is getting annoying. I keep staring at your profile picture hoping to get some…
You can try make some? 
You aren't rated 2300 in any time control. I am rated almost 2100 in one time control.
What happened at your 10-game match with Pinocchio?
Did both of you win 10-0 as I predicted, or not?
Ask someone who has at least 5000. You'll learn a lot very quickly.
Chess study is quality over quantity.
The quality of your study is much more important than the quantity of your study.
Doing 300 tactics a day does nothing if you cannot remember the pattern, motif, and "why" the tactics worked.
Doing 3 tactics a day and thoroughly understanding the pattern, motif, and the "why" behind the tactic will do much for your improvement.
Probably true, might do nothing if I just fly through them for the sake of it.