More or less?

I just wanted to say that your question was a good question to ask... for those seeking to improve.  

It really depends on what you feel comfortable with. I was playing 2 90 30 games a week for a while, but I decided to drop one of them because two was too demanding psychologically.

Thanks everyone for the advice. I'd like to ask chesster3145 what he means by '2 90 30' games. Also to ImLagTheFlagger, surely in takes two to tango when it comes to quality right? Long time isn't a guarantee of quality, it might just provide more opportunity for mistakes and blunders, I'm sure however this advice does have a useful potential when combined with other factors. I don't mind playing long games to be honest. As for analysis, what exactly do chess players mean by analysis, is it the kind of analysis that can be done through a computer here on this website, or by oneself somehow in some sense and approach, or is it just thinking about what went down and reflecting? I suppose there are players with their own conceptions of what it means to analyze their and other games appropriately.

@DavidCharleston: 2 games a week at a time control of 90 30.

Maybe it would be helpful to look at The World's Most Instructivve Amateur Game Book by NM Dan Heisman

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708092834/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review872.pdf

or maybe A Fresh Look at Chess by GM Lev Alburt ("40 instructive games, played and annotated by players like you")

"..., you have to make a decision: have tons of fun playing blitz (without learning much), or be serious and play with longer time controls so you can actually think.
One isn’t better than another. Having fun playing bullet is great stuff, while 3-0 and 5-0 are also ways to get your pulse pounding and blood pressure leaping off the charts. But will you become a good player? Most likely not.
Of course, you can do both (long and fast games), ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (June 9, 2016)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/longer-time-controls-are-more-instructive

It is easier to improve at something if one does it slowly. Try to find opponents who are a little better than you.

So I read good parts of the thread and wondered what has been decided?  I will add one view point to this:  playing a bunch of short time control games in a row can be useful because you will inevitably want to review them immediately, and can quickly see key moments, opening errors, and the like.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding! @DavidCharleston I was not trying to imply that you were a beginner. What I meant to say was that you could use those same ideas that the study plan is based around to create your own personalized study plan that would apply to you.

Sorry if I offended you, but I assure you, it was not my intention!

No hard feelings mocl125. Well Mickey it has been decided for some time now that longer games are more instructive and better for improvement.

That said that has been concluded at least by me in concurrence with those who share this perspective, and I would add in spite of some of my formulations, which weren't necessarily a reflection of conviction, but an ongoing open exchange and frankly somebody had to the test the waters. Which is something I would point out and emphasize to kindaspongey, his relevant contribution none withstanding, just so we're on the same page.

I can always go back and return to my first chess book of my chess genesis, during my teens that I recall precisely how memorable and enjoyable that was, the 'Chess Player's Bible' which included a useful recommended reading list at the end that was so crucial.

I just wanted to add that now that I recall the reason why I thought that blitz games are a better way to improve, rather than long correspondence chess, is because that's what a +2k elo rated chess coach I payed for a few sessions had told me.

So let's clarify, you guys don't necessarily mean correspondence chess when you're talking about long and slow games, or do you?

At least I don't.  I understand it to mean classical OTB games.  

Hey MitSud, what's the difference between merely seeing where and when all went wrong, and seeing mistakes and blunders, also to be distinguished from mistakes and blunders that are common enough to be considered inherent to the player in question?

So...

Anyone?

The secret of enjoying chess is not to overthink it...thats not how to improve, just how to enjoy🤗

Less is more in many cases. jus sayin 

slower games to improve, faster games to solidify what you know.