Can you really become a class A player by studying tactics?

The Evan's, King and Queen's gambits are among the most solid gambits to play and always will be.

Where on earth did you get this idea?

The Evans Gambit isn't refuted, except in the sense that it doesn't give White an edge with best play. Black can get equality in several different ways. The King's Gambit may actually give Black a slight edge. It's not losing by force, but it's not much fun to play in correspondence anymore. The Quaade Gambit is one of the last great refuges for White in correspondence chess. 

The Quaade Gambit ?

Maybe correspondence chess where engines are permitted. There remain limits to the analysis in books and electronic sources of annotations.

I respect the 19th century players more than the modern era guys. They just played by gut.

The top level GMs are using computer analysis before each game in order to give them the heads up on any ideas they have. It's all about computers in chess now and that's not what it should be about.

We're doing what the "machines" suggest. It just defeats the object in my opinion.

There is always a chance for perpetual check and draw for sacrificer's.

Well said, Paul.

      Can you become a musician by studying scales?

I've played and chatted with Emory Tate. He studies openings, endgames, and positional chess.

For the record, he did beat me in that game, and he beat me with a nasty attack. He strove for complications after I had equalized in the opening and I got lost in the thicket. But in order to strive for complications, he had to understand the nature of the position. Tactics don't appear in a vacuum. Tate also has some endgame skills too. 

Why not 63.Kb7?  Anyway, it's amazing he avoided a drawn rook vs. pawn ending where the opponent's king is too close to the advanced pawn by not playing 66.Rc7?? as 66...Ke5 67.a8=Q,Rxa8 68.Kxa8,Kf4 69.Rf8,Kxf3 70.Rxf3+ it's a book draw for black, the white king is simply too far. 

66.Rc8! on the other hand looks great, as the queen attacks the pawns instead of the rook after 66...Rxc8 67.Kxc8,Ke5 68.a8=Q. or 66...Rf7+ 67.Rc7,Rf8 68.a8=Q,Rxa8 69.Kxa8,Ke5 the important difference here is that white has the move: 70.Rc4 cutting off the king 70...Kd5 71.Ra4, Ke5 72.Kb7,Kf6 73.Kc6,Kg6 74.Kd6,Kh5 75.Ke5 and black would never be able to create a passed pawn, because obviously 70...g5 71.fxg5,fxg5 72.Rxg5 loses the pawn and 71...f4 72.Rc5+,K any 73.Rf5 loses the pawn.

I play the Evan's Gambit quite a bit.  I get good results when using it.  A lot of times I face the 2-knights though, and I need to work on it as I am not fairing as well against high A and Experts.  Of course, they don't allow the Fried Liver Attack. 

Well, to be honest, in the 1800-2000 range, most openings are playable. There are people who play the Latvian successfully in that rating range too. It's when you start facing the +2200 crowd that openings get tested more severely. 

The Evans is playable, even at high levels. But it's not likely to gain any theoretical edge. Black's equalizing strategies are well known.

Here's a very recent example of the Evans Gambit. Yes, Black won. But also, White played it against a +2800 monster. It's certainly playable OTB for most people. It won't give White an advantage, especially if Black is prepared. But Nisipeanu's loss wasn't due to the choice of opening.

The way I see it, it's like the story or Achilles heel. To be 2000+ I think that you really need to be a 7/10 in all areas...opening, strategic / positional chess, tactics, endgame etc.

Being a 3/10 in any of those areas is what will kill you. Better to be a 7/10 in everything than a 9/10 in one area and a 3/10 in another..because that weak spot will continuously cause you issues.

Please, post your wins against these GMs.

I'm an A class player, about 1800, and I'd say it's almost impossible to get here with just tactics. I got to this level by studying strategy and tactics for at least two hours a day for about two years. It also has really helped me to cut blitz chess out of my practice. I only play games that are 30+ minutes because blitz chess just fosters bad habits and favors speed over the quality of your moves, which isn't what chess is really about.

That's impressive you did that without reading a book, but you did take classes and study games (e.g., Morphy). You probably watched videos or did whatever....

(Sidebar). If your name is cookie monster, why don't you use this as an avatar?                                                                                                                                                                             

+1 cookiemonster. No need to feed the troll. 

Yes, the super-genius AY doesn't even know which threads are his.