What % of time to devote to play vs study as a beginner?

So I know that this question or some variation of it has been asked a ridiculous number of times here on the forum, but I'll beg of you to indulge me with one more thread on the subject.  I have searched through some of the other threads, but haven't really found the answers to my questions that I am seeking.

In order to advise me, I think that it is important I clarify where I am and where I am wanting to be.  I am currently a beginner level player, highest rating on this site was about 1250.  Having taken a break recently and then come back, my rating has predictably plummeted back down, closer to 1100 now.  I have no aspirations of becoming a GM or expert level player, however I would like to improve to where I could at least consider myself a intermediate player (let's say somewhere in the ~1600 range as an achievable goal).  Some stipulations:

1.  I don't want to spend much money (or any at all if possible)     Chess is a just hobby for me, and I have a wonderful and growing family, and I don't want to spend money on something that is a luxury right now.  So this rules out things like coaches or subscriptions to certain sites.

2.  I do not have the time to spend hours and hours each day on chess.  Once again, work, family, life, etc. many blessings to be enjoyed and I don't really have a ridiculous amount of time to spend on chess.   

3.  I have very little opportunity to play chess OTB with anyone at a decent level.  This is going to have to be mainly online, the closest chess club is about 2 hours drive one way.

So with those limitations in mind, I will share a few gems I have gleaned from the other threads I've viewed (correct me if I am wrong).

1.  Studying openings at my level is a waste of time.  My games are decided by blunders, not precise positional play.  Furthermore, learning "traps" that work on 1100 rated players does not seem like a good way to advance my skill level.  I have tried to learn basic opening principles (i.e. develop your pieces, control the center, protect your king, etc.) and then apply them to the given games situation instead.

2.  Tactics are the most important thing I can spend time studying at my level.  Avoiding blunders and spotting other people's blunders is going to help me advance and studying tactics is probably the best way to help with that.  In general it will also just help me to find the forcing moves that decide so many beginner level games.

3.  Reviewing my games is important.  I need to learn from my mistakes and my opponents, both when I win and when I lose.

4.  Playing at longer time controls is better as need to think carefully and avoid bad habits caused by blitz.  I've been playing my games mostly at 15\10, but I think I will try to increase this to 30 minutes per player for now.

5.  Studying annotated GM games is of only limited value at my skill level.  While this can be helpful to see how chess is viewed at that level, it is plainly way beyond me and just focusing on my own games and drilling more tactics into my head seems to be a better way to go (correct me if I am wrong).

So then, with all of that said my question to you is, how should I divide my limited time I devote to chess in order to improve?  I see 3 main means of practicing chess, Playing Games, Doing Tactics, and Reviewing my own games (first on my own with Pen & Paper, then maybe run it through a computer to see what I missed).  So what % of time should be invested where, and how?

For actual play I try to have 1 (and only 1) correspondence game going at all times so I can really take my time and study each of the moves.  Then when I play a live game on here, I am going to start using 30 minute time controls so I have plenty of time to think each position through.  One thing I have noticed is that I tend to get more "amped" if I sit down and start playing multiple games of chess on here in a row.  Either I become frustrated by losing and rapidly enter another game without a clear head, or fresh off the high of winning I go into another game looking for a quick win and often blunder away in over confidence.  So I am wondering if a "quality over quantity" approach is going to be better for me when it comes to the number of games I play.

For tactics I do my 5 free ones here (and the 1 chess mentor lesson allowed per day), then I head over to another site and do 10 tactics each of Standard, Mixed, and Blitz.  With the Standard and Mixed I really try to take my time and get each one right, often spending several minutes per move.  Would it be better to try and focus on more time oriented tactics (i.e. the Blitz ones over there or the ones with Tactics trainer here)?  Or is making sure I "get it right" more important?  It is not uncommon for me to lose rating here for taking too long on a problem.

For review I usually just try to look over my game move by move and see what else I could've done better.  Then I usually run the PGN through the analysis and see what I missed.  Any idea how long I should spend on this?  10-15 minutes per game before putting it in the computer?  As long as the game itself?  Longer?  Does it vary by the game?  For instance in a game where I or my opponent make an obvious (at least after the fact) blunder and hang a piece, then go on to lose is that really worth analyzing much vs. a game with lots of back and forth that ended after more of a struggle?

So bottom line is, how much time to spend in each area, and does the way I am doing it sound right?  Thanks in advance for any help and advice, it is much appreciated!

First, you need books, if you dont know about chess how will you analyze and apply what you learned on your games? You will either need to ilegally download them in the interent and get arrested by my secret police or buy them, buy Logical Chess Move by Move.

You are not doing enough tactics, do 100! Seriously tho, 15 are not that much, at your level you should get your brain burned, do 20 tactics or so, and dont guess moves, calculate everything and then move. 

Aditionally, one does not measure how much time he will analyze the game, he just analyzes it and thats it, you will need to check for tactical blunders, decide wether your plan was correct etc... 

My hands are tired and I need to get on my private jet, but just one final thing. If you dont have time, money and competition then dont take chess seriously cause you wont improve!

Thanks for the tips, though one point of clarification is that I am doing 35 tactics a day, not 15.  It is 5 here and then 10 EACH of Standard, Mixed, and Blitz on Chess Tempo.  Thanks again.

Tactics is a matter of quality over quantity.  Doing hundreds of tactics a day wont help if youre not learning/understanding/remembering the pattern.  I stop after 3 missed tactics.  I thouroughly go over the ones i missed until i understand them.  The only time i will do hundreds a day is when im reviewing.  

Tactics will help you for a bit, but after awhile you will get stuck and will need to start studying. There are many free engines that can help you with anaylzing your games but I strongly suggest going over them by yourself first.

Here's what you need to do:

Invest in a few books:  "The Inner Game of Chess" by Andrew Soltis, a Tactics book, an Endgame book, and a game collection of a player from before 1950 (i.e. Capablanca, Steinitz, Rubinstein, Lasker, etc).  Spend an hour per day on that.

Play 1 game per day, avoiding blitz and bullet

Take 2 weekends out of the year and travel to a tournament.  A typical weekend event is 5 rounds.  This would give you 10 games over the board per year.  Look for tournaments that are in locations that the rest of the family can come and treat it like a vacation.  Let's say there is a tournament in Norfolk, Virginia some weekend.  You can go for a week long beach trip.  You spend the 4 days during the week exclusively with the family.  Then the wife and kids continue their beach activities on the weekend while you are going to the tournament Friday Night, Saturday, and Sunday.  You can drive back and forth the 30 minutes or so.

The other 50 weeks of the year you are at home with family 24/7 (or traveling with family to some place and spend it 24/7 with them).  If you actually try it, you'll see it's not a big deal if the wife and daughters/sons are at home and you are not for say, one weekend in April and another in September.  Maybe the wife wants to go "with the girls" somewhere in July.  You get the kids!

How much do you think you can spend on chess?(if any at all)

Oh I'd hate to go much past $40-50 to start with.  Obviously over a long time period it could add up to more than that if I kept buying books or programs and such (even just a few books a year would add up to hundreds of dollars over the course of 4-5 years though I probably wouldn't spend that much).  One time purchases like buying a book I don't mind as much compared to weekly or monthly expenses like a coach or subscription to something.

These are entirely reasonable suggestions, thank you.  The playing 1 game a day thing I am starting to see as more and more necessary.  Quality vs. Quanity as other people have noted seems important in terms of both games and tactics study.

I see a lot of people recommend the purchase of a book on tactics.  Is there a reason these are more helpful than just studying tactics in a computer program?  Is it the programmed approach to learning them or the way they focus on one thing at a time?  Is it the tactile nature of a book?  Like is a tactics book more useful then a program like Chess Tactics for Beginners 2.0 (I know that is based on a book so it is kinda the same thing...)?  I would think the book would be sort of "used up" once you'd gone through it and not of much value.  But then again I've never owned one so it's not like I would know...... 

- Play blitz(5 0r 10 min) & bullet(2+1 min)

- Practice basic checkmates and basic tactics.

How much time a week can you devote to chess study?

The purchase of a chess book is IMO personal opinion.  Some think its better to set up the problems on a real board.  While others prefer doing tactics on a computer screen, while others dont think it matters.  That will be something you will have to figure out for yourself.  

The most important step is reviewing your games and finding your mistakes. Also: finding improvements.

Many play a lot, but don't review. Review each and every game, each and every move.

Learning positional play gave me a huge leap in understanding. Books like Nimzo's "My System" and Silman's "Reassess your Chess" might feel difficult or tedious at times, but in the long term, the ideas in them will be absorbed and will make you a much stronger player.

If you play strong positional chess, your pieces will be properly placed to take advantage of any tactics that arise.

Though there could be exceptions certain weeks where I could do more, I doubt I could study\play much more than 10-15 hours most weeks.

Tactics books are not just about problems.  They are also about explaining how to achieve them, and usually involve exercises at the end of each chapter.

Sure, it's great to know what a Fork, Pin, or Skewer is.  Do you know how to create one?  How to combine tactics?  Enticing a piece to a bad square by giving up a pawn or even a Bishop in order to get that Royal Fork (fork of the King and Queen with a Knight) and win instantly?

Also, with a book, you should be going thru it with a 3-D board in front of you.  Doing everything on a 2-D screen limits skill growth.  The 2 tournaments a year is also to get some play on a 3-D board.  The "3-D" display on a computer screen is NOT the same thing!

When studying a GM game, going thru a database with no annotations and click click click ain't the answer.  Forcing yourself to make the moves yourself physically actually does more than just make you push wood.  Trust me, I've studied chess books for over 20 years, and own about 400 of them!

If you are not good in tactics, then getting into 'good' positions is useless. Infact, there is no such thing as a 'good' position, if you don't know how to make use of it. And there is no 'bad' position, if you know how to make use of it. All positions are good or bad depending on the players.

I was about the same level as you a year or two ago. The thing that helped the most was playing only standard and online games. After every game I would use a computer and opening database to analyze every game. It helped a lot! Good luck

Assuming your opponent knows how to play well, there definitely is such a thing as a good or bad position.

I am trying to say that a position is good or bad depending on the players involved. I don't think a position by itself is good or bad(unless its a forced mate or stalemate or zugzwang or that sort of a thing).

I like doing tactics from BOOKS and not websites, because you have to figure out the WHOLE variation and can not pick just an single move and move on.

now you MIGHT say that certainly when you play chess you only have to find a single move at any one point.

but in most situations its not enough to find an interesting or forceful move- you have to see the WHOLE thing.  sometimes a long variation is wildly strong, unless the Opponent makes Just the right move.   that makes the variation weak and not a good tactic and you need to see that.

you can't separate out the false and strong tactics without lots of experience analyzing stuff, and you get much more experience with this from a tactic book. 

I would also say that there are easy and hard tactic puzzle books and to be a strong chess player you need both.   you need to be able to "see" typical patterns, rapidly and with ease- as well as being able to crunch the "he goes there and I go there" kinds of situations.

as for books, they can be chancy investments, so one good idea is to visit your local library so you can get some idea what is speaking to you and what doesn't.