I kinda understood the article different.
In your example you still breaking it on blocks. 15 minutes opening... and the so.
The way I understood the article the study session would look something more like a selected game, even designed if that is the case. Where the person study the opening, the midle game, the tactics, and the end game, all in single game.
So to say, the game have certainly chossen opening that goes to some positional midlegame, that goes trougth some tactical combinatios that eventually ends in some end game theme...
Of course finding (or designing) games that have all this juice on them is quit some work.
I read an interesting article on Wired today and thought I would ask if anyone here uses a chess study method similar to it. I haven't read any of the papers by the professor mentioned in the article so I don't know if he has specific recommendations on how to study.
For those that don't want to read that article, the basic method is to practice many related concepts in a study/training session instead of just focusing on one to mastery.
I could see doing something like this, especially since I have a limited amount of study time. Would be interesting to figure out an efficient amount of time to study various areas if I only had one hour to study.
Maybe something like 15 minutes on opening study in a particular opening, 15 minutes of middlegame study, 15 on endgames and maybe 15 on tactics. Though, I think to most efficient I should try and study middlegames, endgames, and tactics that often arise from the opening lines studied.
Which brings to mind another question. What is the best way to find the types of endgames that result from certain openings. I think Chessbase might be able to do it but can any free utilities/programs do it or do some online sites have the information? I'll check SCID out more in depth later and see if its search parameters are helpful in that endeavor.