Are tactics really the way to go?

Everyone knows but do they do it? Fiveofswords maybe post an example game? I don't think fiveofswords means the only thing they do is not develop there are probably other things aswell .

Yes, tactics is the easiest way to improve! Definetely.

You may have just summed up why I dont like chess that much.

Yes, creative thinking happens at the top of the chess field, but creative ideas on their own are worthless unless they are accompanied by an endless amount of "chess knowledge" that must be gained over thousands of hours of study.

It should have stated "creative". It is like being too greedy to set up a tactic and then overlooking the fact that you just downgraded your position in the process. I do it all the time, but i was playing OTB last time against a lesser player than me, and i saw him doing what i do wrong all the time too. He attacked at a point that was just too soon (read forcing a tactic). I try to explain it but well, as i was saying i was just seeing myself. 

Chess is about patience and a great knowledge and yes like you i do not like that very much either. It is what i don't like about chess very much either.

Keys to success:

• Understand how the pieces interact in all 8 directions plus knight moves
• Avoid creating weaknesses in your own position
• Place pieces on good squares
• Opening preparation is not vital until 1800 at least
• Overtraining will result in minimal progress and will make chess seem less fun.
• Strictly adhering to "general principles" will result in losses and blindly played chess games, not an increase in playing strength.

At least we try our best. It's not easy because development itself is not enough. It should have a point and it's the problem for majority of people including me. I'm going to develop a piece but which one and where?

Please do. http://www.spokanechessclub.org/area_events.htm

The Collyer is a fine event. IM John Donaldson plays in it. 

I believe it's the board vision and it can be trained as well.

The first three goals to any chess player is to learn elementary endgames, basics tactics and become a good attacker. A lot chess players still have not learn basics and stay low rated for life. Tactics is one the hardest to master, so yes, one should focus on tactics. Duh!! Most players are weak in tactics and they don't attack well and also weak in the endgame; even otb expert (2000-2199 Elo), they are weak in the basic endgame. Even if a low rated player is has some understanding in basic middlegame and strategy, if they are weak in tactics they will lose to low rated player who is stronger attacker and decent tactics.

There is one and only way to improve: learning from your mistakes.

I have to respectfully disagree.  Tactics are probably the most studied thing in chess, or second place behind openings at least.  It's also why I have three books on defence: New Art of Defence in Chess, How to Defend in Chess, and Aagard's Practical Chess Defence.  I'd say they know tactics but not how and where to look for them because of a positional deficiency.  Alekhine is a great rolemodel in this regard as his combinations were played within the context of building up his position.  The accumulation of small advantages and pursuing strategies come first, the big move comes after all that. 

I agree however that many players don't attack well, but such players are usually 1700 USCF and below. 

As to endgames, well that varies.  I'm quite aware of many themes such as centralizing the queen, securing open files, transformation of advantages, small majorities tend to be worth more than larger ones (I think because larger ones are easier to neutralize due to g4/g5 or h4/h5 advances), queenside majority typically being better due to both sides kingside castling being the norm, rooks belong behind passed pawns, either your own or the opponent's, opposite colored bishop endings initiative is far more important than material, rook activity is worth more than material in rook endings, in bishop vs. knight endings one should play for zugzwang, and such knowledge makes the candidate move selection that much more streamlined. 

Positional chess at its base is preventing the opponent's freeing pawn advances with everything else such as open files, weak squares and color complexes, bishop without a counterpart, pawn structure, bishop against a knight, bishop pair, activity, etc.

Even the 1100 rated 7 year old I played finished development quickly. Usually the problem with lower rated players is they finish development but it's very passive. Or they continue developing when it's not important at that moment.

Googled it, 26+ hour drive

Tactics is a component of improvement. But if all you know is tactics you won't  have an idea on what to do if there is no tactics available on a given positions. The fastest way to improve is to study tactics,positional play and endgame.

...even otb expert (2000-2199 Elo), they are weak in the basic endgame.

Oh, the tragic fate of a chess player to achieve an Expert rating while being weak in the basic endgame!

If Expert players are routinely weak in the endgame, I'd have to conclude the standard advice that beginners must study the endgame is way overrated.

It's hard to become an Expert. Most people fail to go that far by hundreds of points. And I'll bet their problem isn't a weak endgame.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's great to study endgames and the higher you go in chess, the more important endgame study is. But compared to tactics and sound playing principles, the endgame is a much lower priority.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good idea.

If such strong players are weak at the endgame, then you would do best to study them so you can get past this threshold of weak endgamers.

Remember, when running from a tiger you don't need to outrun the tiger, just everyone else running from the tiger.

It seems to me that most other aspects of chess are built on tactics - e.g. endgames, openings, strategies, etc. These are all built of series of tactical maneuvers. I'd say yes, tactics are the basis of it all.

But then I suck at chess so you'd better listen to experts

I wouldn't say the base but rather a level above it.  At the base are calculation (how you determine a tactic or candidate move in general is sound in conjunction with...) positional assessment/evaluation of who stands better, by how much, and why. 

For a developing player I think the essential endgame knowledge are opposition, Queen vs a pawn queening,rook behind passed pawns, basic lucena and philidor position. Bishop and pawn where the queening square is opposite the color of the bishop is a draw. These endgames are not that complicated to study,and won't take that long to study.

What's common in practice are strategic endgame positions. Theoretical endgames and strategic endgame positions are different. I think it will be good for the developing player to study strategic endgame position. Good books on these endgames are Endgame Strategy by Shereshevsky, and the lighter read 101 endgame tips by Giddins.

For a developing player I think the essential endgame knowledge are opposition, Queen vs a pawn queening,rook behind passed pawns, basic lucena and philidor position. Bishop and pawn where the queening square is opposite the color of the bishop is a draw.

jambyvedar: Essential? I would say "nice to know."

How often do developing players lose points or half-points because they didn't possess these nuggets of endgame wisdom compared to missing tactics or playing positionally bad moves?

I rarely reach endgames where I am grateful I know the opposition. I've never encountered the Lucena or Philidor positions. I'm glad I know these endgames but so far it hasn't made much difference.

I'm not proud of this. It means I play at a level where I or my opponent make too many significant errors or outright blunders that we don't reach the endgame or it is so imbalanced that a patzer could win.

I expect this to change as I get to 1800+. Since I'm ambitious and curious I am studying the endgame now. But for the majority of tournament players, I just don't see how endgame knowledge is the essential missing piece that would make all the difference in their play.