Chess is 99% Tactics - The First Great Lie!

Before I get digitally jumped, I am not discounting the importance of tactics in chess. I will be only suggesting that improving players may put too much importance on tactics training. We read in the forums all the time questions from improving players how they do tactics training for 30 mins a day and can not get past XXXX rating. There has to be a reason for this.

I suggest that tactics actually account for less than 20% of chess. If we look at chess in the amount of time we spend in different fazes of the game, it breaks down - at least for my games:

a) 8% in the opening. Most games are out of book in less than 10 - 12 moves of a 35 move average game.
b) 75% in the middle game. almost 20 moves are spent jockeying for an attack.

c) 5% Tactics - Most combinations at least for me are not more than 4 moves, plus a move or two to stop an opponents tactics.
d) 5% end game - Not a whole lot of games reach a true end game but none the less a few do.

Before the math police come out in full force - the above only accounts for 93% of the game. I concede that about 7% of the game can go to anyone of the above areas in any given game.

With the above information, it seems to me that a lot of players spend far two much time studying tactics and nearly not enough understanding of chess positions and evaluations. The phase "Chess is 99% tactics" and the generic advice to all players who ask how to get better - "Do tactics training" appears to limit the improving players growth and enjoyment of the game.

I for one have studied tactics and have never gotten much of 1450 - in search of a better way to improve than to just "Do tactics training" I have come up with my own study plan that I feel represents how much time we truly spend in each phase of the game.

1) 5 tactics and combinations problems per day from the book Encylipieda of Chess Tactic and Combinations. Done over a real board, no touching of the pieces to "Try things out" and no looking at the solutions until I have written down and committed to an answer for all 5 problems.

2) Study Soviet Middlegame Technique as my guide for better understanding of positions and evaluations. Play through AND ANALYSIS Grand Master Games and annotated games using one of the various study methods, guess the move for instance. One hour per day.
3) Twice per week add a half hour of end game study using 100 end games that everyone should know.
4) Study openings and the middlegame that comes from them - again grand master games, 1 hour on Saturdays.
4.1 - The Dutch for black against d4.
4.2 - The Scandinavian for black against e5. I currently play the French but realize how little I know about it and how over my head it is.
4.3 d4 for white - not sure what system yet.

Stop playing Blitz all together. Stop playing anything but daily chess (limit 2 games at once) for 3 months. I feel I need to break bad habits and form new ones. After I have train myself to look at the positions differently start playing OTB only (it is harder to find a game and will limit my play forcing me to spend more time studying) and analysis every game played completely.

In my humble opinion I feel this will lead to greater success than just doing tactics. 

I feel that one year of this practice will get me to at least 1700 and prove that chess is at least 75% middlegame -> meaning that mathematically "Chess is 99% Tactics" is the greatest lie ever told.

micro technic, macro tactic

The main thing you are discounting here is that in the middlegame, you are trying to find positions that may allow tactical possibilities, avoid getting into positions that allow your opponent tactical chances, and recognizing those positions where tactics are are latent within the position.

There are many tactical themes where if you have never been exposed to them, you will very likely never see them when they come up in a game. One of the most important parts of tactical training is getting that pattern recognition, so you can calculate positions that that steer towards them.

So, much of the middlegame is actually tactical positions that never show up, due to recognizing them and maneuvering to gain or avoid them, so still tactical in nature.

In regards to endgames, knowing which endgames are winning/drawn/lost, will give a lot of benefits in the middlegame, since you can recognize when it may be advantageous to trade down to begin the endgame or avoid it, even if you never get to play out the ending.