Almost a year ago, when I played not many games (never going over 70), I reached a top of 2272. But I couldn't go any higher.
Maybe you need some coaching, or studying the right book, but not playing more games for sure.
Where is you weakness, have you identified it? Opening, middle game and strategic play or the end game?
If you challenge me with an unrated and takeback game and give me 5 games that you have won and 5 losses and 5 draws that you want me to look at to paint a picture of your play I will do so and see if I can help you in anyway.
I have played the game close to 1/2 century and played thousands of games and have on record 20,000+ correspondance games.
Your call.
And when I analyze the 15 games you ask me to look at and if I have no clue on how to help you, I will simply tell you that I am not up to the challenge.
Fair enough?
I will need a week to analyze the 15 games and possibly 2 weeks at the most.
Sure. Invite will be sent in a moment :)
While it is certainly possibly to play a ton of games at once, I think there is a fairly strong inverse correlation between number of active games and in-game playing strength. For instance, to use Kacparov as an example (since he has commented on here quite often), his online chess rating is 2027 while his FIDE rating is 2203. I have a USCF rating around 1600 (though I have not played OTB in a while) but an online chess rating of 2086 right now. However, I only have a handful of games that I play at a time, so I can sometimes spend 15-20 minutes (or more on a few occasions) figuring out what I want to do. Thus it is quite possible to play a ton of games, but if you do, then your playing strength will necessarily be reduced in those games.
Will you be playing in the Battle Creek tourney in April?