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

No that isn't all you need to do but you've got plenty of time ahead of you to figure that on your own. In the meantime you can always try relying on this bit of wisdom to win games with

I only see one move ahead but it's always the best one 

(often attributed to CAPABLANCA)

My suggestion would actually be to study endgames.  They are replete with examples of piece activity outweighing a pawn or two and form a basis for middlegame strategy as well.

Then I'd go for the middlegame strategy books like Pachman's strategy or Soltis' pawn book... but others may say to skip straight to this.

Well I m not very good at chess but In my opinion when we have material advantage only then it is best to go for exchanges as thru exchanges opponent's strength starts diminishing quickly and that one piece edge we have comes into play. Other than that I exchange when at the end of it i m one piece up (giving 1 piece for 2) . Also it depends on value of that piece in the particular game and what role u have assigned to each piece determines it. I hope this helps.

This is a small list of advantages and strategies that tactics study alone will not teach you to aim for:

Striving to own the center.

Owning an open file.  Planting a rook or rooks on the seventh.  Knowing which rook to use to sieze an open file.

Causing your opponent to have more pawn islands, or isolated pawns, or doubled pawns, or tripled pawns, or backward pawns.  

Causing your opponent to have exploitable holes in their position.  Knowing when to delay using an oupost, when to use it, and when to give it up for another advantage.

Entombing or otherwise limiting the scope of your opponent's pieces.  Ensuring that your pieces have more scope and more potential targets than your opponent's.

Obtaining a superior minor piece; knowing which available piece trades are better for you in an otherwise seemingly-equal position.

Disrupting your opponent's castled position, or preventing him from castling.  Knowing when to give your king a flight square, or when to make "mysterious king moves".

Gaining space and squeezing the options out of your opponent's game.

Relatively sound opening play.  Having a relatively sound opening repertoire, whether playing White or Black.

Knowing how to win a K+P v. K ending, and when it is winnable.  Knowing how to defend in the same situation, and when it is drawable.  Understanding how to create and play the Lucena and Philidor positions, and how to play to avoid them.  Understanding the "umbrella" and "back door trick" in rook-and-pawn endgames, and how to guard against them.  Understanding the odd nature of opposite-colored bishops.  

Knowing that there are exceptions to every rule.  Knowing that every possible advantage has a time and place for maximum exploitation value (for example, in the middlegame, rooks want to own open files, while in the endgame they want to support passed pawns or attack enemy pawns).  Knowing that some advantages can trump others in specific cases, while in other cases the opposite may be true.  Etcetera.

Sometimes a series of chess moves achieves a strategic goal without gaining material.  In my mind, these situations are effectively combinational, just like any tactics puzzle--but there is no material plus.  Instead of winning an exchange, or a minor piece, or even a pawn, you can win an outpost, or an open file, or a good bishop v. bad bishop game, or superior king safety.  

Class A players know what they are fighting for in equal positions.  They just don't do it as well, or they don't sort out what principles are more important in a given position, as the experts and masters do.  Tactics are very important, but they aren't enough at all.  You can't get to Class A on tactics alone, but you definitely can't get there without tactics.

I'd venture a guess that most players have heard most--or all--of these rules before.  If you have heard them, and you are not yet Class A, you probably know intuitively that these rules are in your head, and you cannot unlearn them.  Strategic thinking is part of the makeup of your chess brain, but it's just not developed to Class A or expert or master level.  You couldn't advance that far on tactics alone even if you tried.

I think tactics exercises are the most important part of study to get stronger - exposure to patterns helps creativity in a game. But the critical part is not the study - it's post mortems with, looking at games with, and just hanging about with, stronger players. I think that teaches you more about positional concepts and planning than any book - stronger players than you think differently. Being tactically sharp will allow you to keep up with them whilst processing that understanding.

This is tricky because even the great 'positional' masters like Capablanca, Petrosian and Karpov eventually won most of their games through winning material by tactics. But as has already been said, the winning tactic was there because the players strategy up to that point was superior to their opponent.

I don't think its possible to give a simple formula like 'study tactics and you will become a Class A player' - some people could study tactics 24/7 and still lose most of their games because they just have no aptitude for chess whatsoever.

I can tell you from experience, it's an absolute fact that all you need to study is tactics.  I went from a little over 1000 USCF to 1600 on tactics alone, and I will break into the A-class (or near it) in my next tournament.  You might FEEL as though studying those positions help you, and maybe they do to some inefficaciously minimal extent, but they don't move you toward A-class as tactics do.

It's like Michael De La Maza said, class play is almost always decided by tactics.  I'll take it further: all class play is decided by basic tactics, whether executed or missed.  I love only having played the game for a few years and smashing thes players who have spent thousands of ours on positions, master gams, and openings.  If you can't gain 200+ points in a year while being a class player, you haven't caught on.  TACTICS.

A kid whom I coached when he was in high school does not study chess, but practices tactics. He is rated a bit over 1900 USCF now. Here, he is beating me in a game in the coffee shop this afternoon.

Have you changed your opinion from 2 years ago?

It would seem so. I still think that its a rare player who will do so, however. My former student did and does learn positional ideas playing and talking to strong players. But tactics is his main strength and the combinations he came up with today in casual coffeehouse games were quite deep.

Even so, I crushed him in one game with the Ponziani. I lost three of four.

Your records on uschess.org shows you have less than 20% against B class players and less than 15% against A class players so apparently you havent caught on too well either ..... You cant become an A class player like that and certainly have no chance if you don't play otb tournies which you havent done for some years now .... 

I'm on the fence it seems. I haven't done any coaching which doesn't help me decide.

I suppose one question worth asking is:  if you've made 1800 through tactics "alone", are there any roadblocks for future progress on to 2000 and 2200?

Hmm, is the Ponziani tactical? I seem to recall it is. I wonder how he'd play if you tried some boring lines against him (not that you wouldn't have thought of this).

As for De la Mesa (mentioned in #27), he admits to having studied many other areas of chess. It's just that his miserable tactics held him back.

I hover between high class A & low expert (currently 1995) and yes, it's mostly tactics though basic endgames & some opening knowledge helps.

De La Maza is not really a good role model unless your goal is only to break 2000.  He broke 2000 & then quit.  To get to Master there's alot to learn (which I'm working on) but even that I'd say is going to be a lot of tactics.

You can't really go wrong studying tactics.  If the rest of chess (opening theory, endgames, etc.) is too much or overwhelming just go do some tactics on chesstempo.com & don't worry.  

I see some folks here with good TT ratings and horrible blitz ratings. What gives? And vice versa too. I am not refering to those who cheated at TT. Positional understanding is very important although its not flashy like tactics. I outplayed many class A players in OTB simply because of positional understanding (afforded by a longer time control). And such wins are more satisfying as well.

IMO tactical acuity is especially important.But sayings like "chess is 99% tactics" i find a bit too much.I guess the more balanced the player,the better it is,in other words being as  equally good at strategy,tactics,openings,midgame,endings,as possible.Any marked weakness in any of the  the above sectors will result in loss of playing strength.So my take is try to be good in all departments of the game!

It is probably safe to say that for U1800 adults who have read a few books, been to a few tournaments, played for a few decades (all that sort of stuff) that what's holding them back from 1800 is not their openings or endgames or strategic understanding. It's most likely because they're not rigorous enough in their analysis, looking for all the tactics.

I beg to disagree.what you are saying is that tactics is everything.Well,it isn't, at least for humans.getting obsessed with tactics at the expense of other aspects of the game  can only result in deterioration of your play.

Maybe not the best way of saying it, but what I'm saying is that U1800, tactical deficiency, more than anything else, creates a glass ceiling.

Of course you need at least a little of everything to get better.

When M. de la Maza comes into the conversation, I switch back to asserting that tactics alone will not get you far. He is a charletan--an effective purveyor of snake oil.