An hour per day

If realistically I only have about an hour a day to devote to playing chess, what is the best way to spend it so I improve? Is possible to become a decent player if I only have an hour a day to devote to it?

Yes it's possible. Do lessons here and play games alternately.

yes.

study 15 minutes of tactics first every day. it will get your mind in chess mode.

spend the other 45 minutes studying.

say you have a 5 day week.

spend one day studying the openings that you play.

spend one day playing through complete games. game collections, specific players that you like, Zurich 1953 is a good one. The 100 best games of Mikhail Tal. Sameul Reshevsky, Bobby Fischer does not matter.

spend one day on endgames. Ruben Fines Basic Chess Endings, 100 endgames you must know by Jesus de la Villa, Casablancas best endgames does not matter.

spend one day studying strategy. Reassess Your Chess by Silman is a good one.

spend one day just playing. have fun it will keep you from burning out.

take two days off for the other things in life.

Lol, serious you obviously suck why give advice?

don't listen. then the problem is solved for you.

Those who can't do, teach.

It's possible to be great at anything, as long as you put your mind and energy to it.

The key to getting better at chess is to understand the game, and your ability to make good decisions. How do you do that?

1) Do tactics on chesstempo or chess.com, to train your tactical eye

2) Read books (yes, paper books). Play them over the board and ask yourself why they made that move.

3) Train by playing tournaments. Try your very best, and when you lose, ask yourself what you could've done better.

Once you've attained a certain skill level, you can beat other players very easily.

#4 This right here proves that you don't have any braincells at all. The advice he gave is probably the best for a training routine.

@3
"spend one day just playing"
++No, play one 15|10 rapid game every day. Analyse it when you lost it.

Study without play is sterile.
Play without study is futile.

One hour per day is a lot. 99% of casual players spend less. I don't really understand the concern.

Just don't expect quick results.

It has to be consistent for months to really pay off (if you're like me).

@12

One hour is barely enough for 4 tactics puzzles and a 15|10 rapid game even without analysis.

I normally agree with you and I do think that you are a good player. but the average chess player does not have the skillset already to make improvements to their game by simply analyzing their games. you cannot identify problems when you don't even know what they are.

chess is like any other sport or game. practice is for improving your game and learning and growing. playing is for applying what you have already learned in practice in a real situation.

@15

"I normally agree with you" ++ No need to, feel free to disagree.

"I do think that you are a good player" ++ I used to be better, but not even FM.

"the average chess player does not have the skillset already to make improvements to their game by simply analyzing their games." ++ He does, and he can ask an engine for help.

"you cannot identify problems when you don't even know what they are."
++ You can. If you lost a game, then you must have made at least one mistake. Identify your mistakes and identify the decisive mistake. What candidate moves did you consider? What was the right move? Did you consider the right move? If not, why? If yes, then what made you play the mistake? How much time did you think on the mistake? How much time did you have available?

"playing is for applying what you have already learned in practice in a real situation."++ No, it is the other way around. First you play and then you practice to avoid the mistakes you have made.
Say you lose a rook endgame. Then you study rook endgames. You do not start by studying a rook endgame and then hope it occurs some day and you remember. That is how human learning works. Even engine learning: AlphaZero was fed nothing but the Laws of Chess and then played games against itself to learn.

:=)

dependence on an engine to correct mistakes is the last thing that a beginner or intermediate player needs. it is merely a tool to be used by players that have already learned fundamentals. not unlike a physicist or a mathematician uses a calculator.

I am not saying that analysis of your wins AND loses is not valuable. it is extremely important. but that is a part of practice not playing. every sports team looks at film after the game.

Bottvinik knew everything there is to know about the semi slav. do you think that he learned it all by simply playing? or did he study it before hand and applied what he learned in the game?

studying rook endgames is not about learning specific scenarios and hoping that you can remember it alone. studying rook endgames is about learning principles that you can apply in your games. like active and passive rooks, king placement or advancement, the difference between a bishop pawn or a knight pawn or a rook pawn when it comes to the queening square. learning fundamentals comes from practice and then applying it to your play.

@19

"an engine to correct mistakes"
++ It is like a 3000 grandmaster coach that is available 24/7 for free.

"I am not saying that analysis of your wins AND loses is not valuable."
++ Analysis of losses is far more valuable than analysis of wins. With 1 hour / day, forget wins and analyse losses only.

"every sports team looks at film after the game"
++ For chess, which is purely intellectual and not physical, it is far more important. Strategy and tactics play a role in basketball and soccer, but players must also run and handle the ball well.

"do you think that he learned it all by simply playing?"
++ By play and analysis.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008381 13...Rc8? instead of 13...b4 was a mistake, as Fischer pointed out.
In this game https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008391 he played 13...b4 and notes: 'My game with Walther had taught me this lesson well.'

"did he study it before hand and applied what he learned in the game?"
++ First he played, then he analysed, then he played...

"studying rook endgames is about learning principles that you can apply in your games."
++ No, first you play and then you learn.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008390 43 Kxg4? instead of Rc7+ is a mistake.
Fischer wrote: 'I stayed up all night analyzing, finally convincing myself and, incidentally, learning a lot about Rook and Pawn endings in the process.'