Best Study plan

Congratulations on reaching 1700 at your age. With hard work, you will become a very strong player.

I'm not much higher rated than you, but I've given a lot of thought to a proper study plan since I returned to chess a little over a year ago after 25 years away from it. I am working on four areas and would recommend including them in your study plan.

1. Endgames. It's true that proficiency in endgames is essential to chess improvement. I'm using Silman's book.

2. Tactics. Awareness of tactical patterns is vital in evaluating positions and deciding on a course of action. I am doing 5-10 tactical problems a day, using Maxim Blokh's "Combinative Motifs".

3. Concrete analysis. This isn't normally mentioned in "how to improve" threads, but it's extremely important. You have to be able to accurately analyze the variations from complicated positions if you're going to be a strong player. The best source I've found for guidance on this topic is Kotov's "Think Like a Grandmaster". One of his recommendations is especially helpful: take a complex position from an annotated game. Spend a set amount of time with it, say 30 minutes, then write down your tree of analysis. Then compare what you wrote to what the annotator says and how the game actually went. Nowadays, you can substitute Stockfish for the annotator. The important thing is to practice this type of analysis and check your results. It will definitely help you when you play real games.

4. Pawn structures. You are at a point where positional judgment and planning are important to further progress. Learning how to play various typical pawn structures is a first step in this area. Initial books on the subject include "Pawn Structure Chess" by Soltis and "Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide" by Mauricio Flores Rios. There is much, much more to positional play, but I think pawn structures provide a good starting point.

You will notice that I didn't include openings. They are important, but you will learn a good bit from studying pawn structures. Detailed study of opening theory will take time away from improving your chess skills, and should wait until you are at least 2000. Some say 2200.

It's also vital to play often so that your studies become ingrained: the things you learn have to be turned from knowledge to skill, and that's only possible through practice. You should also analyze your games, especially losses. You need to understand where you went wrong. It's not enough to realize that you lost because of a particular mistake (I played Bf4 and should have played Ng5, for example): you need to understand why you made that mistake. Was it lack of chess knowledge, such as how to play that type of structure, or was it an error in your thought process. The answer will tell you what you need to work on.

Best of luck in becoming the player you want to be.

Play all 64 squares, not just the 9 t0 16 squares where the action is, you never know what you miss, especially in the middle game.

Good stuff Old Patzer Mike.  Particularly, the concrete analysis part.  

Very true. That is one of the errors in thought process that I have been trying to correct in my games. Thanks for pointing it out.

I can only second Mike's excellent post, but add that you should also study master games. It's a sheer pleasure and helps your general pattern recognition as well as improving your strategical knowledge. Select well-annotated collections; i.e. not just someone who's printed out reams and reams of computer analysis printout, but a good mix of verbal explanations and elucidating variations. There are many good ones: Alekhine's 'My Best Games', all books by Botvinnik (there are several, and all of them excellent study material), Fred Reinfeld's and Reuben Fine's on Lasker's best games (Fred Reinfeld is always slated as a bad and sloppy author, but his Lasker collection is a masterpiece), Tartakower's best games collection, Hans Kmoch's on Rubinstein, Irving Chernev's book on Capablanca's best endgames, Harry Golombek's on Capablanca's best games, Paul Keres' best games collection, and his book on the 1948 world championship tournament (published in English for the first the time last year, previously only available in Russian and Estonian) - Kasparov dubbed this the best tournament book of all time, Bronstein's book on the Zürich-Neuhausen Candidates Tournament in 1953 (this book and Keres' 1948 WC book are a great introduction to modern chess, basically all the openings which are still highly important became extremely popular in the late 40s and early 50s, and this will give you a great grounding in them), Bobby Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games, Mikhail Tal's best games collection. There are many more great game collections, but I would suggest starting with the older collections before moving on to more recent players, because the games are much more clearcut than today's. Often the ideas and concepts were actually implemented in full in their games, whereas today the opponents are  parrying each other's threats before they can be executed (meaning that much remains hidden below the surface). I read somewhere that the Russians used to say, 'Start by studying Akiba Rubinstein's games' before you move on to the others. I think that's a great recommendation, and would recommend following up with Tartakower, Alekhine, Capablanca, and Keres (not necessarily in that exact order), and then continue with Botvinnik, Bronstein, Tal and Fischer.

Excellent suggestion and a fine list of books. I would only add "Reshevsky's Best Games of Chess".

My earlier post indirectly (if cryptically) included the study of such works in the last sentence of the paragraph numbered "4". The "much, much more" was meant to include studying well annotated game collections, as well as books that focus on aspects of positional play, such as Pachman's three volumes. I got a bit lazy and left it as a general statement. Thanks for filling it in; you did a much better job of it than I would have.

In any event, my thinking is that having a basic understanding of common pawn structures is very helpful in getting the most out of studying annotated games, so I recommended that as a first step. I don't know if that's correct for everyone, but it has helped me immensely.

Fisher's book (Fisher teaches chess) is very good for pattern recognition, especially back rank mates which take up most of the book. It is probably a little simple for you as you surely know most of this but it is not expensive and easy to read. Oh, only but the hardback the paperback is not good to see the diagrams.

chess.com suck all.. i am 1300 in lichess i am 1900,, and tournament suck 

This is NOT Fischer's book, it just has his signature (because everybody loves good lucres).

Mostly a collection of back rank mates for complete beginners.

Great book.  Maybe the first chess book one should read.

In addition to the tactical problems, Bobby walks us through some of his best tournament moves.  Great commentary by him.

Totally agree with you! Also, excellent suggestion with regards to Reshevsky and Pachman (his 'Complete Chess Strategy' is definitely three books I wish I had read as a junior).

There is so much I wish I had done differently when first studying chess. My first big mistake was spending countless hours on openings in the mistaken belief that memorizing enough lines would translate to wins over the board. That time could have been so much better spent learning actual chess skills.

The other big mistake was trying to study material that was beyond my comprehension. Fischer's 60 memorable games and Botvinnik's 100 selected games are wonderful books, but they are not aimed at the beginner. I'd love to be able to create a list of useful books based on a player's level of knowledge, similar to the way Silman's endgame book is organized. Unfortunately, I'm not strong enough or sufficiently familiar with all of the literature to put together a credible list. Your suggestion of starting with the older masters and then moving on to more recent players is an excellent guideline.

Botvinnik's book of games is way over my head but Alekhine's is cool

Good chance for Top 100.  Not sure about the other two goals, but maybe.

Possibly of interest:
"... the NM title is an honor that only one percent of USCF members attain. ..." - IM John Donaldson (2015)
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
What It Takes to Become a Chess Master by Andrew Soltis
"... going from good at tactics to great at tactics ... doesn't translate into much greater strength. ... You need a relatively good memory to reach average strength. But a much better memory isn't going to make you a master. ... there's a powerful law of diminishing returns in chess calculation, ... Your rating may have been steadily rising when suddenly it stops. ... One explanation for the wall is that most players got to where they are by learning how to not lose. ... Mastering chess ... requires a new set of skills and traits. ... Many of these attributes are kinds of know-how, such as understanding when to change the pawn structure or what a positionally won game looks like and how to deal with it. Some are habits, like always looking for targets. Others are refined senses, like recognizing a critical middlegame moment or feeling when time is on your side and when it isn't. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093409/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review857.pdf
100 Chess Master Trade Secrets by Andrew Soltis
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094523/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review916.pdf
Reaching the Top?! by Peter Kurzdorfer
"... On the one hand, your play needs to be purposeful much of the time; the ability to navigate through many different types of positions needs to be yours; your ability to calculate variations and find candidate moves needs to be present in at least an embryonic stage. On the other hand, it will be heart-warming and perhaps inspiring to realize that you do not need to give up blunders or misconceptions or a poor memory or sloppy calculating habits; that you do not need to know all the latest opening variations, or even know what they are called. You do not have to memorize hundreds of endgame positions or instantly recognize the proper procedure in a variety of pawn structures.
[To play at a master level consistently] is not an easy task, to be sure ..., but it is a possible one. ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)
http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2015/11/16/book-notice-kurzdorfers-reaching-the-top.html
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
"Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.
That 'chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah' thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time." - IM pfren (August 21, 2017)
"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2008)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/can-anyone-be-an-im-or-gm
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-fight-stereotypes-using-chess-in-rural-mississippi/
http://brooklyncastle.com/
https://www.chess.com/article/view/don-t-worry-about-your-rating
https://www.chess.com/article/view/am-i-too-old-for-chess
https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-can-older-players-improve
Train Like a Grandmaster by Kotov
Becoming a Grandmaster by Keene
What It Takes to Become a Grandmaster by GM Andrew Soltis
"BENJAMIN FINEGOLD (born Sep-06-1969 ...) ... Ben became a USCF Life Master at 15, USCF Senior Master at 16, an International Master in 1989, and achieved his final GM norm at the SPICE Cup B Section in September, 2009. ..."
http://www.chessgames.com/player/benjamin_finegold.html
"MARK IZRAILOVICH DVORETSKY (... died Sep-26-2016 ...) ... He was ... awarded the IM title in 1975. Dvoretsky was also a FIDE Senior Trainer and noted author. ... During the 1970s, Mark was widely regarded by the strongest IM in the world, ..."
http://www.chessgames.com/player/mark_izrailovich_dvoretsky.html
"To become a grandmaster is very difficult and can take quite a long time! ... you need to ... solve many exercises, analyse your games, study classic games, modern games, have an opening repertoire and so on. Basically, it is hard work ... It takes a lot more than just reading books to become a grandmaster I am afraid." - GM Artur Yusupov (2013)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/QandAwithArturYusupovQualityChessAugust2013.pdf
https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/book-review-insanity-passion-and-addiction
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/26/books/books-of-the-times-when-the-child-chess-genius-becomes-the-pawn.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2017/05/05/making-a-living-in-chess-is-tough-but-the-internet-is-making-it-easier/#4284e4814850

https://www.chess.com/news/view/is-there-good-money-in-chess-1838
"... Many aspiring young chess players dream of one day becoming a grandmaster and a professional. ... But ... a profession must bring in at least a certain regular income even if one is not too demanding. ... The usual prize money in Open tournaments is meagre. ... The higher the prizes, the greater the competition. ... With a possibly not very high and irregular income for several decades the amount of money one can save for old age remains really modest. ... Anyone who wants to reach his maximum must concentrate totally on chess. That involves important compromises with or giving up on his education. ... it is a question of personal life planning and when deciding it is necessary to be fully conscious of the various possibilities, limitations and risks. ... a future professional must really love chess and ... be prepared to work very hard for it. ... It is all too frequent that a wrong evaluation is made of what a talented player can achieve. ... Most players have the potential for a certain level; once they have reached it they can only make further progress with a great effort. ... anyone who is unlikely to attain a high playing strength should on no account turn professional. ... Anyone who does not meet these top criteria can only try to earn his living with public appearances, chess publishing or activity as a trainer. But there is a lack of offers and these are not particularly well paid. For jobs which involve appearing in public, moreover, certain non-chess qualities are required. ... a relevant 'stage presence' and required sociability. ... All these jobs and existences, moreover, have hanging above them the sword of Damocles of general economic conditions. ... around [age] 40 chess players ... find that their performances are noticeably tailing off. ..." - from a 12 page chapter on becoming a chess professional in the book, Luther's Chess Reformation by GM Thomas Luther (2016)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/LuthersChessReformation-excerpt.pdf

RJF was teh greatest with the London, Colle, Caro-Kann and Semi-Slav. Only openings he played. Evah. Loved his pawn triangles.

"My triangles are so sharp, I've never played an endgame in my life. My Colle is so vicious, it has rabies. And that ain't nothing until you've felt the wrath of Caro-Kann."

--Bobby Fischer

We do not study Fischer for his openings but to enter into his spirit of pure logical simplicity. 

study with Books