False dichotomy. Do both. It's almost like asking if the more important element of the scientific method is the theoretical considerations that lead to the hypotheses, or the empirical data with which to test them.
Two roads diverged in a wood...
Sort:
I agree you can do some of both. But for example, should I play 6-8 games, of which I spend a lot of time on a couple. Or should I play 30-40 games concurrently? See the difference in volume? It really becomes a time efficiency issue.
I am no expert in chess, nor am I a master in the precise methods by which chess is mastered, but I would imagine that there is probably not one single best way to go here. You might start by playing a few games and going all in on the analysis until you find some new insight, and then at that point play more games so as to put this new insight to use. Then repeat the cycle!
I want your opinions regarding chess improvement. When I started at chess.com I played a few games at a time, taking time to really analyze positions and make the best move. Slowly over time I played more games concurrently, til I reached the point that it became worklike to go over all the games and make decisions.
Recently I read that Fischer, starting about the age of 12, played 12,000 games per year. That's nearly 35 per day. Obviously these games couldn't have lasted long. This got me to thinking.
Thomas Edison was a great inventor that used the trial and error method. Simply put, he would try something and learn from the failure, getting closer to truth as he went. Nicola Tesla was also a great inventor. He typically had flashes of inspiration, followed by imaginings in his head. He would work out most problems in his mind before trying to construct the object.
What do you think is better? Playing a lot of games, trying something over and over until you refine what works? Or playing less games, studying the alternatives, taking the time to visualize several steps down the line, and reviewing what worked?