Just hit 2850 puzzle rating, while only being 1100~ rapid

I've just now reached a rating above 2850 for the first time, and I'm wondering how best to apply tactics to my 30 minute games, as my general chess knowledge outside of puzzles is rather poor.

As my rapid rating is just around 1100, I'm wondering what parts of my game I should focus on to improve as a chess player, not just as a puzzle solver. 

A problem I know I struggle a lot with is overthinking scenarios, and spending way too much time on moves, looking for the "best" move. I almost always get into time trouble because of this. This is very frustrating to me, and I don't see how to best tackle this issue.

You've done something like 3,400 puzzles and have only played 81 games. I think there's no reason to make a harsh judgement on your playing skills.

Do you review each game after you play it to see what your worst mistakes were? Are you missing complicated multi-move combinations or just hanging pieces?

Puzzle solving ratings aren't like regular playing ratings. The types of puzzles you are solving at 2900 are way more complicated than the simple tactics you are likely missing in your games.

I think the skills in the timed Puzzle Rush are more appropriate for improving basic game play. Mate in 1 or 2. Simple forks. Hanging pieces.

Great job on the puzzles rating! I would love to get a puzzles rating of that high, I’m struggling right now at the 2600 range.

I never worked so hard on tactics until I crossed over 1400 and practically playing catch up on my pattern recognition and practical skills. 

Just keep up the effort on the puzzles, play more rapid games and analyze your losses and draws. The puzzles training will pay off as it did in my case by being able to beat players +400 above me.

Thank you for the reply. I tend to go over most of my games and analyze them with Stockfish, although often I find some times the moves it suggests to be so complicated that I don't understand them at all, even if I go through the line.

I do tend to fall for traps where my opponent sets up a two-move sequence that ends in a piece hanging, so spending more time trying to understand my opponent's logic behind their moves would probably be a good idea for improving.

Yeah, I for sure need to play more games, and also analyze my games more thoroughly.

I find puzzles to be a lot of fun, especially the more difficult ones, as they usually teach me new patterns I hadn't thought of earlier. Hopefully I'll be able to apply some of what I've learnt from solving puzzles, in my games. Thanks for the reply.

If you are that much more highly rated in tactics, counterintuitively you should actually try to play more solidly than you currently are. 

Here's why. At 1100 all the way up to around 1600 rapid, if you play solidly, even with no ambitions or general plans, just waiting to spot tactics as they appears, you will win almost every single game. Of course it's better to have ambitions and general plans...

Instead of focusing on finding winning tactics for yourself, focus on finding winning tactics for your opponents, and how to stop them. You will likely win most of your games when your opponent tries to go for a tactic that actually doesn't work. AND that is probably exactly how you are giving away most of YOUR games right now. 

I haven't thought of that, but it does make a lot of sense that instead of constantly looking for tactics after every move, I should instead try to shut down my opponent's tactics. 

Yes, I do give away a lot of games simply because I think I can perform a sequence of moves that will win me material, but then fail to take every possibility into consideration, and my plan falls flat when my opponent makes a move I didn't account for.

I think taking this approach can prove far more useful to me than constantly being on the lookout for tactics. Thank you so much for your insight. 

No problem it's something that's often overlooked by new players very strong in tactics. There is a mathematical reason for this. When you start a forced sequence of events, by definition you have to see 1 full ply farther than your opponent does to accurately calculate the tactical sequences. And there are many many more positions in chess where there is something that looks like it "is pretty hard to stop I don't see how to", but there is actually a way to stop it, than there are positions where you just have a forced win. You will likely encounter many of these positions as your position gets better and approaches winning. If you try to jump on them without complete certainty, then it's very easy to miss some resource, and much much easier for your opponent to spot that missed resource after you have made a move, than it is for you to notice it, because you have to look a fully ply further. Depending on the position, that can mean a LOT more difficult. The best rule of thumb is to not go for a "winning" sequence in a "good" position unless you are entirely certain that you have exhausted all possible resources for your opponent. In rapid, at least. In blitz/bullet the story becomes different. 

I’ve been told by a coach as well that under 1800, it’s mistakes that separate the players but being ambitious is going to make you a better and knowledgeable player in the long term. You’re going to advance and eventually learn middle game plans for both sides. 

Nothing wrong with solid and dull, if that’s your choice. Personally, I prefer imbalance and sharp lines for tactical opportunities. 

Don’t worry about giving games back, that was a major hole in my game as well but it goes away more and more with experience.

Here are a few of my latest missed wins at the 1400 to 1900 bracket:

1.  Bishop sac gave me the initiative but I missed Nh4 for the win:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/53025679787

2. Nd4 was the winning move:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/52453249681

3. I was drunk and lost track of time. Knowing the opening and middle game plans would of saved a lot of time and preserved the win:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/53051978321

Why's that?

Try losing in the opening

People bragging about a puzzle rating at 1100 elo is like people bragging that they can do CrossFit when they can only bench 135 pounds

On a serious note, I would recommend going easy on the puzzles at this point and worry about sticking to a couple of openings and analyzing mistakes you make in the opening/ early middlegame. You can know every tactic in the world but it won't matter if you don't have the opening and positional knowledge to achieve a good position