percentage of time spent in play versus study

Yes, but the training *is* the activity, building up the skills.  It's not learning.  In basketball, you spend some time learning plays and strategy, but most of the time practicing shooting, practicing plays, etc.  Same thing with chess: playing games here is like practicing.

FWIW, noted long-time chess instructor NM Dan Heisman has the following on his website:

Breakdown of How to Best Use your Chess Time to Improve (all are rough approximations and vary by student and need):

Play ~55% of your chess time; Study 45%:

Of the Play time, use 85-90% of your time to play long time control games slowly and 10-15% for speed games with the same increment as your important slow games. Play about 60% of your opponents slightly stronger than yourself. Review the game afterward with your opponent, strong player(s); database, engine, etc.

Of the Study time, use approximately 50% of your time doing appropriate level puzzles (tactics, positional, endgame), 30% instructive annotated games, 15% "other", and 5% learning opening tabiyas and looking up your openings

The general consensus seems to be if you want to get better spend more time and study than play. I think studying is a fun way to spend the time. It is rewarding to put work in and see small gains. The problem is in chess the hours of work are quite a lot to see small gains. But they're there. I'm glad somebody quoted Dan Heisman, he would have a breakdown on this. Of note his definition of slow games are minimum 30 minutes, which for me in my timetable are hard to fit in but I do try to emphasize those. Never have time for the 60-minute games he recommends

daily is great for longer games because you can allocate your time more flexibly:

if you wants to spend a couple of hours here & there deliberating on a certain move... no problem!   🙂

I've found the studies and lessons invaluable as well as talking with other players etc but for me I find just getting stuck in and playing especially with better rated opponents and more highly skilled players teaches me more. You only ever get smarter by playing a smarter opponent and all that as they say but to each their own we all learn differently! :)

Hi

#22

"Play ~55% of your chess time; Study 45%:" I said 50% - 50% that is about the same

"Of the Play time, use 85-90% of your time to play long time control games slowly and 10-15% for speed games with the same increment as your important slow games."
++ I recommend one time control only and with increment. Either 15|10 or 25|10. If you hover between 2 different time controls, then you will not find the right pace and play either too slow or too superficially. Increment is good as it allows you to always win a won position or draw a drawn position. It is more about chess than about flagging and dexterity.

"Play about 60% of your opponents slightly stronger than yourself."
++ That is right you learn more from lost games.

"Review the game afterward with your opponent, strong player(s); database, engine, etc."
++ Review lost games only, but thoroughly. You learn more from a loss than from a win.

"50% of your time doing appropriate level puzzles (tactics, positional, endgame)"
++ That is way too much. In a real game nobody tells you there is a tactic or for which side.
4 puzzles are good as a warm-up.
A soccer or basketball player does not devote half of his practice to penalty kicks.

"30% instructive annotated games"
++ can be more: learn from the best.
Study of annotated grandmaster games is second only to analysis of your own lost games.

"15% "other"" ++ What is that supposed to be? Endgames?

"5% learning opening tabiyas and looking up your openings" ++ Can better be 0%. Useless.

I think you've hit upon something that's key -- there's learning and there are skill sets.  You need both, of course, but for improving players, practicing skill sets (whether tactics puzzles or playing) is paramount.  Games featuring players below 1500 are almost always decided by tactics, not a lack of knowledge.  (As the saying goes: what's the point of learning to play a perfect opening for 7 moves if you're going to lose a piece on a tactic by move 12?)

The OP is under 1000 in rapid.  I have not looked as his games, but I'd urge everyone here that's, say, under 1200, to look at your last 5 losses and figure out where/how you lost.  Odds are that the overwhelming proportion of games were lost on a tactic.  That's the practice we need, not a better understanding of move 6 in the Sicilian, or how to do Lucena.

#28
That is correct. There are priorities.
< 1500: Blunder prevention
1500 - 2000: Tactics
2000 - 2500: Endgames
> 2500: Openings

My last couple of games have all been lost because of blunders, or not seeing a tactic the opponent had, or not seeing a tactic that I had. So blunder prevention is probably my main issue, consistent with my rating

I know im pretty low rated, but ive known some good chessplayers in my time.

Heres some advice for what its worth:

1. read "my system", its a dense book which takes a fine toothed comb to a lot of important chess concepts and teaches you how to apply them in your own games. its a heavy read, but totally worth it. I'm only part way in and my rating has shot up hundreds of points.

2. get a nice endgame book, Im lucky to have gotten my hands on "How to Win Endgames" by yanofsky (a friend of my grandfathers back in the day). but any will do

3. learn the common openings and their general concepts, apparently the nimzoindian is pretty popular amongst top players

4. watch chess players on youtube to get a sense of how they command the language of chess

5. have fun

cheers! sorry if this may be bad advice, its just an attempt to be helpful

You've really hit the nail on the head here.  Heisman says that almost every game between players who are U1600 will have the same story (except that the higher rated folks lost to a tactic that may have involved only one pawn).  But, same thing.  And this is exactly why he stresses learning tactics, learning pattenrs, and playing a lot to practice seeing them in a game provided you review the game afterwards.