What do you think about my Chess Training?

Reading books is infinitely better than watching videos. If you're serious about chess, quit wasting time on blitz. You've played over 12000 blitz games and under 200 rapid. Blitz is not the path to improvement.

Books go far more in depth in whatever topic the book covers than some 30-60 minute video ever could. I've watched hundreds if not thousands of chess videos. I've learned more in reading a few books than I ever did in all those videos. I wish I had started with books first.

Lol, I was 25-40% considering watching videos instead of reading books.  

Thanks for the admonishment.  

I think this debate about books and videos is very interesting.

I find that videos are less demanding and that's the main reason I favor them. They require less effort and are an easy way to get new information and ideas. Books are deeper, but they require a lot of effort to study properly.

The videos of chessbase for example, also come with the games in pgn format and you can study them in a pgn reader. That's another advantage.

At the current moment, I spend more time with videos because I don't have the energy and patience to study books. But again, books are more complete.

"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)

For much of that stuff, a video seems like a plausible choice, but what about the last step mentioned by Davies - looking up a line after a game?

Thank you for your comments! 

There isn't anything WRONG with watching videos. But videos are almost always more superficial than books are. And if you want to learn as much as possible about any topic, you'll think of videos as a starting point, not as a primary source of information. 

Step away from Chess for a minute. Look at any movie that is based on a book. The movie ALWAYS leaves parts of the book out. Sometimes it is bits of dialogue. Sometimes entire characters and sub-plots are missing. The reason is simple: videos are a time-bound medium. Books are not. 

You can watch 20 hours of videos on end games and you will garner far less information than if you spend those 20 hours working through a serious end-game text by a qualified author (think Nunn, Dvoretsky, Muller, de la Villa ...). 

That's because the videos aren't going to show you the dozens of sub-variations and additional analysis and subtle nuances that will be found in the heart of good books. 

There's a reason why graduate students in any subject live at libraries and not in front of video screens. Written text is more efficient at conveying information, is not time bound, and is generally more information dense. 

To someone who has never achieved true expertise in any field, no it isn't. In this era of instant information access people frequently don't realize how much work is involved in becoming an expert and they easily confuse a dilettante's conversational awareness with mastery. 

I play a lot of 5-5 blitz, and usually orders  computer analyze. It helps me, especially it helps me tuning my openings. The computer sometimes tells me about ideas I didn't find by myself. I think blitz is much more efficient learning if I computer analyze the games. 

I'd say books are better than videos, if everything else (content mainly) is equal. 

Given this information, what you [the OP] need is a coach. It sounds like you're putting in a lot of time and effort but not in a way that's helping you. There are definitely good general suggestions in this thread. But, do you know what your strengths and weaknesses are? WHICH books should you read? WHICH lessons should you do? What should you focus on? A coach will help you figure this out and train in ways that actually benefit you.

I am currently taking new students. If interested, send me a private message. However, I'm far from the only chess teacher on here, and certainly not the cheapest. So based on your level and budget, you could look around. My general point remains, though.

"... the majority of DVDs and videos are best suited for introductions to their subjects and are therefore good teaching tools. If you're looking for comprehensive theory, there's no doubt that you'll usually get quite a bit more from a good book on the subject. But DVDs can contain some surprising gems even in that respect, and in any case they are a good way to add some variety to your chess study." - IM John Watson (2012)

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/chessbase-training-dvds-and-downloads

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/chessbase-dvds-and-downloads-part-2

The most productive training is playing stronger players in slower games.  Ideally, classical chess games vs players 100 - 200 points higher than you. You learn little from beating up weaker players or by being crushed by players so far out of your class you won't even understand why you lost in some cases. The range given is challenging but still giving you a reasonable fighting chance to win.

Playing serious games against stronger players will teach you more than other learning methods.

My best trainings have been Otb tournaments and analyzing with my opponents after the games.