How I study chess (beginner, 29 yrs old, 900 ish)

I don't believe all you need is tactics.

I've been steadily improving essentially non stop. I do a bit of tactics but I also study endgame and opening theory along with watching videos/reading articles on different topics and playing games to practice.

I believe positional understanding has a bigger effect in your games the higher you get as well. So where you may be great at tactics you can end up in games at higher levels where you can't make any tactics because your position isn't in as good of shape as your opponents.

I don't think anyone should study only one aspect of the game to make themselves a good player.

As I remember it, the guy who wrote RCI won one major tournament, wrote his book, and then disappeared. And while he was a strong amateur, he never did obtain any level of title.

I think he did have a positive impact on the game of chess with his controversial book, in that it really put the emphasis on tactics, and especially for those who good benefit most from tactical improvement.

But he went too far. Tactics, while probably the one element that will make the most impact for those of us who are class players, its still not the whole story. After all, what do you do when you find yourself playing through an opening (which you know nothing about because RCI states opening theory is a waste of time) which has no tactics? Most likely come out with an inferior position and then its an uphill battle.

But say you come out of the opening equal or only slightly worse, but again there are no tactics - what then?

In any case, I think it will generate a lot of rating points, but sooner or later you're going to hit a ceiling because your opponents know tactics too, but they also have the opening and positional understanding that the one dimensional RCI player doesn't.

Me I prefer to study all aspects of the game, and I do study tactics daily as well. They're vital, and right now they're where I put the bulk of my study as I know they'll deliver results fastest. But I still study positional play, a little opening theory, and some endgame material as well - because I don't want to be a one dimensional player.

 To be a good chess player you have to be a good chess strategist.
This is clearly not necessary. To be a great chess player you need to be a very good chess
strategist. To be a good chess player – let’s say an above average tournament player – you
“simply” need to be able to keep your pieces safe (and know when your opponent’s pieces
are not) and keep all your pieces active. Ordinary strategy, following basic principles, is
probably sufficient unless you want to elevate to the titled levels such as expert and above.
It’s that simple. Too many players make chess too difficult: they read advanced
grandmaster games and positional text and then proceed to play the opening as if it is the
middlegame, try for grandiose plans and attacks when simple ones will do, and so on. But
one thing is clear: If you can consistently keep your pieces safe and active, then you are
well on your way to becoming a good chess player, and will be able to beat almost any
grand strategist who makes basic tactical mistakes

Sure it is. :)

Where did you come up with this very strange "5 memory bank" theory?

Ratings don't measure your strength like length or weight.  A chesstempo rating only compares you to other chess tempo ratings.  A chess.com rating is not the same.  It's all relative to the pool of players.

FWIW my chesstempo rating is also a few hundred above my chess.com live rating.

You ever waste an entire day playing bullet or blitz?  It sucks afterwards doesn't it?  I once sat and played for 9 hours straight (no eating, drinking, bathroom etc)... it was hard to stand up  : /   

I got about 80 games in.

So where do you draw the line?

Are masters and experts and grandmasters junkies because they have spent countless hours on chess?

for later

This is to be sure that everybody understands what I'm trying to do: I'm not interested by blitz or rapid games. My goal is to improve at 30 min + games. I won't consider those games even if you say that they will improve my 30 min games. Thanks.

I think the discussion is going towards a pointless direction. I've already chose what to do and I'll post the results after 3 months and see what I've did wrong. Thank you for your time and advices 

How many points did you lose?

100-150, something like that.  I had high energy music to keep my blood pumping   You start to play worse and worse, then you get your 2nd wind and start playing well again, but of course overall your play declines.

Not that I'm an old man, but I was younger then, and I can't see myself doing that again, I was pretty miserable by the end of it heh.

The sad part about that is that stuyding chess for 30 minutes would probably help your rating more then 9 hours of addictive blitz.

I'm absolutely convinced that 9 hours of addictive blitz will only ever hurt your non-blitz ability... and for your blitz ability it only polishes what you do have, you'll never improve that base strength.

One of the best things for my chess around this time is when I took a few months off and all those bad habits slipped away as when I came back I was having to calculate / analyse (i.e think for myself) again.

Same here. But subsitute 8 years for a few months. Even though I'm not where I used to be in playing strength, that will come back in time. Meanwhile my style of play is closer to where I wanted it to be back when I was active - I was aggressive then (at my peak anyway), but it was more of a one sided aggression; I could attack, but counter-attack was one of the things I struggled with.

Now I'm more constistent with gaining (and keeping) a real inititiave, and better at finding counterplay. I think this is because, prior to the improvement that took me to the highest strength I'd attained, I was a very passive player. And even when I improved, and became a more aggressive player, some of that passivity would still crop up at times. Now that aspect of my game is gone and I don't miss it.