One problem with solving tactics is you're given a postion you know wins, and often the theme to win. When you play a real game, you have no clue you're winning until you analyze it and then play it out.
For a winning tactic to occur, the other side must have made a mistake, usually a serious one. You can't count on your opponent to make a mistake, you must coordinate your pieces, get them to work together. The better you get your pieces in harmony, the more likely your oponent will make the errors you need.
I think studying a lot of tactics won't yield rapid improvement over 2000. Playing lots of players over 2000 will. You learn from how they play against you.
My methods hinted at above are explained in my free video lessons course. My YouTube playlist has over 300 public videos explaining how a master thinks. All my join my group here, over 7,400 members: http://www.chess.com/groups/join?id=14246
Should tactics be only your only focus till you fight master rated players?
By focus on tactics i mean you already know a little of everything and be decent ( not completely stupid) on other factors of the game
Like you have at least one opening that counters e4,d4,c4.etc and you know how to play 1-2 openings
Know basic endgames like Lucena,Philidor etc and how to win 2 pawns up in an endgame
Know basic positional concepts like
Rook are supposed to be on a open/semi-open file
Knight on the rim is dim
Bishops are great in open positions, Knights great in closed
Passed pawns are valuable
What i am saying is before 2000 level chess should you just focus on tactics and have an decent knowledge of other factors of the game?
By tactics i am also counting exchange sacrifices in order to have a winning attack against a opponent
Will tactics and the will to be aggressive and sacrifice when necessary be enough to be expert level?