Build me a training program?

Lets say that in an ideal world I can spend an hour per day on chess.  I am a low-mid level player, who plays mostly online/turnbased.  I have been mostly winning against sub1400 players, and am serious about trying to improve my game.  Aside from time spent on my online games, how would you rank the importance of the following activities? 

Opening study-

Middle Game Study (books)

Endgame Study (again, books)

Reviewing games of high level players (something Jeremy Silman recommends is playing through large numbers of GM games quickly, no so much for deep analysis, but to try to build up some pattern recognition)

Playing live/otb long time controls.

Playing live/otb short time controls.

Playing against a strong computer opponent.

Tactics training/puzzles.

Or perhaps something else that I have not listed?

In short, how would you suggest an improving player divide their time if they are serious about helping their game?

Ranking:

1. tactics
2. tactics 
3. tactics
4. tactics 
5. tactics
6. endgames
7. tactics
8. tactics
9. tactics
10. strategy/positional play, including annotated GM games
11. opening "principles"
12. tactics
13. whatever is left on your list
14. revisit when you are rated 2000 OTB

I am also struggling with coming up with a good plan.  You have it broken down nicely and thoroughly (all phases of the games, tactics, strategy, books, playing)

Some other recommendations that I have read about, though do not know how valid or helpful they are...

• Play the computer at a level where you can beat it 40-50% of the time.  Seems like a decent suggestion.
• "Thinking Method" books (for instance, Heisman for amateurs, Kotov for more advanced).  For the amateur, probably better off just training/studying more.
• Annotating your own games.  Eh...what the hell do we know at our level?
• Guess the GM move when studying GM games.  Garbage.  
• Analyzing your mistakes.  Let me guess...1490 player...tactics?!  You already have it covered in your plan.   Computers will just waste your time only to tell you to practice more tactics. 
• Play stronger players who are only about 200 points above you.  
• Coach.  $$$.
• Chess Visualization exercises. 
• Break things down into 30 minute blocks, so study 2 subjects per day at the most.  Again, I don't know how practical this is, just what I have gathered from random forums.  
• Memorize a simple opening repertoire cold for tournament play.

1. Plays lots against stronger players OTB.

The rest is what you do when you can't find decent opposition.

I think playing other players constantly is a mistake.Sure you gain experience, but I've seen players with 2000 games rated 1100 or 1200. I've seen a player rated 1590+ with 1400 games, but he still makes very very amateur mistakes.

This is not experience. This is repeating bad habits.

• I'd say do more tactics instead, do about 10-20 problems max per day (so that you remember), once you solve a tactic, review it and try to visualize it with your eyes closed. Then while trying to fall asleep at night, try to visualize one or two problems again. Until you start seeing Queens chasing you in your dreams.
• Books are a good way too, I haven't studied from any books yet. But I bought two recently, still being shipped.
• Review games of players rated 200 points above you--not GM games.
• Try to find chess videos on the internet and review them.
• Play an unrated game everyday, blitz, with an opening you never played before.
• Try to find people/books who can tell you principles to follow during a game, not situation-specific answers to chess questions.

Tell me if this training regimen helps :)! I'm sure an NM or someone would have a better formula.

On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is at the top and the most important.

Almost anyone will tell you solving tactics and playing games (with review afterwards) are the two most important thing you can be doing, how closely the others fall in behind is where my opinion comes in, and like I say at the end, depending on your own abilities one area may need more focus than another.

So I would look at tactics, then longer OTB/live games (with review afterward) and look at a few GM games.

Then comes endgames/middle games/openings and the rest.  So after the essentials, it starts to depend on where you're weak... only you know where you need help.  Maybe openings are ok but middle games are a mystery.  In that case that phase of the game will be more important for you.  Concerning the 3 phases, you don't need an in-depth study of them yet.  If you wanted to focus on one by getting a book then I recommend the author/publisher listed above.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

Well, it seems like tactics it is.  I think as a plan I will try to do half an hour of tactics a day, and then when time allows do a bit of something else, perhaps a mid game or endgame book, or review some GM games.  Although it happens less that it once did, I do still now and then just flat blunder material.  Thankfully its getting rare, but it still happens. 

I don't feel like I should only drill tactics, however.  I need to get better with strategic planning.  I often hit a point early in the middle game where I say, "well, the opening didn't go so badly.  This is an OK position.  What the holy heck do I do with it now?"  Having a better sense of direction in the mid game would certainly make me feel like I was making some progress.

Any further input would be more than welcome.

Yeah, for the most part tactics never stop being important.  Maybe break it up like this, you have:

Drills (tactics, GM game playthrough)
Games  (Review afterwards)
Book learning

If you have only an hour, you certainly wouldn't want to divide it between 4-5 things.  One way to organize it is to have the first part of the hour some drills, lets say 20 minutes of tactics and then play through 1-2 GM games.  On the play through, if on chessgames.com, be careful not to just click next over and over really fast, consider getting out a board and physically making the moves to help be a bit slower and moves more memorable.

So now you've had 30 minutes of drills and you can do 30 minutes of either playing or book study.  If you don't have enough time for games then just shorten the drills because playing is pretty important too! You'd want to at least play 1-2 games a week, but lets say for a few months you make the 2nd half only book study (until you're done with the book) then for a few months go to playing games (so you can practice applying what you've learned).

If you switch week to week or day to day it can get confusing and what you're learning wont sink in as well (at least in my experience).  So sticking with a book until it's read cover to cover is useful.

Oh, and if it's middle games that are leaving you with a lost feeling (which is really common) then I'd mention a book like Silman's "The Amateurs Mind" (modern) and Chernev's "Logical Chess Move by Move" (classic).  Both are great books, I wouldn't really know how to recommend one over the other, I guess read some reviews on Amazon.com :)

Middlegame! You sound like that's what both interests and intimidates you at the moment. Drilling tactics gets old, fast, IMO. You get more out of chess when you understand middlegame (it's a long process, I'm not saying I'm a middle game master myself...) You get more out of reviewing master games, you get better results, you enjoy yourself more because you have ideas to work with.You even get more out of your tactical studies because positional chess is how tactics come about in the first place. Waiting for some tactical combination to fall from the sky during a game isn't very satisfying IMO. But watching steadily increasing strategic pressure wind a postion up until it's ripe with tactics is a great deal more fun.

You can start with Silman's excellent books or try one of the many many other middlegame manuals... Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy is excellent. Speaking for myself... I have found that for strategy to sink in I've had to be a complete information whore -- one book just doesn't do it... I've dug through parts of more than a dozen middle game themed books, plus all sorts of stuff on chess.com, videos, chess mentor, etc.  I also have made a regular habit of going thru master games thinking about each move.For a while I did a game a day, but i've backed off of that...  And I do a tactical puzzle or two or three daily.

good luck.

baronspam

I think you could raise your Chess.com rating at least another 100 points with just tactics alone.

The main thing you have to do is not blunder. Tactically speaking, you should be able to see simple, 1-move combos like 98-100% of the time, and you should be on guard against 2-3-move combos a fair amount of the time. If you can do this, you should become a full-fledged mid-ranged player.

As long as you're not blundering in the middle game, you should have a pretty good feeling about the game, and that aimless fear should go away for the most part.

After this, a lot of other things help. And unless you have a coach, I'm not sure if there is just one path you can take. Some light opening study and working towards building a tournament repertoire will help. Some mid-level endgame study will help. Reviewing games will help. And playing against good players will help you test your tactical vision.

Might as well throw in a "get a strong player to identify any defective thought processes you may have".   This is something which will haunt every aspect (opening, middlegame, endgame) of your game and the sooner you come to terms with thinking mistakes you are currently making, you're more likely to have a better foundation to build on.

"Chess Training For Budding Champions" by Jesper Hall (an IM from Sweden) lays out the training methods he used to get the title.  A little known but great book.

I have just started reading chess books and it helps me to learn a good way to see the board

I'm not sure if an hour a day is enough time to worry about structuring a training regime. Just do whatever takes your fancy: bit of tactics puzzles, a few games, glance at a book, its all good. A few years later you'll be a better player and might feel justified in investing more time in studying chess.

After looking at some of your games, I see you play the Queen's Gambit - I suggest learning a bit about the Minority Attack by reading some articles and then reviewing these games (you'll notice they're almost all Queen's Gambit Declined games). It's a clear, highly-regarded strategy that links from the opening to the end game nicely. Also, here's a nice page for coming up with plans based on other pawn structures you might see in your games.

Other things;

- I fully support going over GM games, picking a side and guessing each of their moves (when you guess wrong try to see why they played their move and not yours - you may have to play a bit further into the game to see it though).

- Definitly solve a few tactical puzzles everyday (Tactics Trainer's 3 a day might not be enough - ChessTempo is good and free)

- I think you could well handle consistently playing people rated 1500+ on this site - your win-% will probably drop from 80% but it's necessary to challenge yourself to improve.

Since I linked outside of this site a few times, might you consider investing in a chess.com membership to enjoy these benefits? - videos (try the free ones in the blue panel, you only get to see the first few minutes of the others though) and Chess Mentor in particular would be very helpful.

Thanks again to everyone for all the feedback.

I think it's perfectly fine to play players below your rating. But you have to treat them with respect.

Some players when they play a lower rated player, will courageously start playing riskier moves or make premature attacks---instead you should focus on very very very slow development, completely defensive games, when you're playing a lower rated player---you should assume he is an amazing chess player.

If you do that, then I think it would be pretty good training and it wouldn't be a waste of time. (I recommend this if you play lower rated players more often)