Puzzles. Method and how many? What do you do?

I do mates in 3 and mates in 4 (that way there is something specific to aim at, so I don't keep getting those ones that say "SOLVED" when I still have no idea what's going on...lol). And I do 50-100 during a run.

I suggest doing mates in 2. However many of them you feel comfortable with in a session (before things start to become tedious).

@MrPushwood said in #11:

I do mates in 3 and mates in 4 (that way there is something specific to aim at, so I don't keep getting those ones that say "SOLVED" when I still have no idea what's going on...lol). And I do 50-100 during a run.

I suggest doing mates in 2. However many of them you feel comfortable with in a session (before things start to become tedious).

Yes, I get ones which say "solved" and ones which I fail altogether. I usually have no idea what is going on. I then spend a minute or two looking at why it is called solved. ( I have move-to-next puzzle automation turned off). Sometimes it becomes clear. Sometimes the position remains so complex (say at 2.2 ahead) I think, "This is all still to play for. I potentially could mess up this claimed advantage about 10 different ways in the next 5 moves."

One-hour puzzle sessions seem to work for me at 3 x 1hr sessions per day. But I am doing no other training (or even playing ATM!) which all has to change soon of course. I just want to embed one good habit at a time in a workable fashion and then tune proportions of time as I add the next element. I found 3 hrs a day that I was outright wasting, so the 3 puzzle hours have cost me nothing in time Those hours were an hour blogging arguments about economics, an hour surfing the web and an hour watching evening TV news (and the ads). All a TOTAL waste of time. I got 3 hrs puzzle time gratis and enjoy this time much more. I feel liberated from all that other rubbish to be honest.

I will probably start seriously working through Robert Rameriz's 150 episode (about) YouTube chess series and Daniel Naroditsky's End Game Series. I've seen some of both already and I think they are excellent. It's probably best that I avoid all the IM, FM and GM speed runs. They are entertaining but I don't think they really teach someone of my low level anything at all. At a higher level, some of Daniel Naroditsky's speed runs may help people already above my level. The rest of the streamers waste too much time in various ways and don't teach in a structured fashion, IMHO. Of course, it isn't teaching at all It is just entertainment and sales pitches.

https://chesspuzzle.net/Filter

If you really want to improve, select any tactical theme you want to master...
Also select the level you want, and then start with a timer...
Lichess tactics are short...have a look!

Thank you for the replies everyone. I will factor in your suggestions. I will have to discover by trial and error what works for me. I might be a slow learner of course. Being 70 I might even be a no-learner. Meaning that I might have lost all my neuroplasticity and be no longer capable of learning anything new at any decent rate. After all, there is a reason for the saying that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Nevertheless, I don't think I should give up yet. I should try for a year to hit hard on the puzzles and the free online chess lessons by Ramirez and Naroditsky, plus games (maybe 15+10 and 30+20).

Now I just have to study and play chess hard for a year as a cranky septuagenarian who lacks patience and has a short fuse. What could possibly go wrong? Weirdly, I like puzzles though I am very slow at them. Memorising openings is going to be tedious I think. Currently I actually hate playing 90% of the time because I am just so, so bad at it and completely lacking in all chess vision (positional and calculation ability).

I'll try not to ask more questions at this stage. It would be going to the well too often.

I think 50% games, 50% puzzles is a good split of time. I agree that you should not overemphasize openings. Only study up if you consistently find yourself in trouble against a specific opening.

50% games is important because it helps you identify what loses you the game. For example - how often do you drop pieces for free - hang a piece in one move? Just stopping doing that should help bump your rating up significantly.

@greysensei said in #15:

I think 50% games, 50% puzzles is a good split of time. I agree that you should not overemphasize openings. Only study up if you consistently find yourself in trouble against a specific opening.

50% games is important because it helps you identify what loses you the game. For example - how often do you drop pieces for free - hang a piece in one move? Just stopping doing that should help bump your rating up significantly.

I think a realistic goal for someone like me at this stage is a long, slow, painful reduction in the frequency of the very very worst blunders (with lots of 2 steps forward / one step back moments). Only time will tell.