user390: I have been learning fairly rapidly lately (will probably go about 400 points in about a year), although I am sure that pace will slow with time.
However, my learning is actually slowed down because I like to play too much. That sounds silly because the whole point is to play and have fun. But what happens is I start playing a few games to try to apply what I have learned and then I just keep playing until I get tired and forget about whatever study I was doing. 
As much as I like playing it's not as satisfying as learning. I know some like to win, some like to play, but I like to understand. 
So, knowing that my goal is to understand as much as possible, how do I get the right balance between studying and trying to apply my studies with games?

user11352: Okay,
I feel like there have already been many good responses regarding the study:play ratio. 
There's no correct answer - as a beginner you can't really 'study chess' because you don't know exactly what to study, how to study and you don't have the foundation yet to make certain judgements about why a certain move is right or wrong. Sometimes a move can be so deep that even grandmasters have to think for a few minutes before finding the correct reason why something is played.
One thing is for sure, you must play and you must study. The play:study ratio should decrease you become stronger at chess. So as a beginner, you should spend 90% of your time playing and 10% of your time studying. Playing will give you the best lessons because you will lose and learn a lesson and then you will never lose the same way again. 
Once you're about 1300-1400 the ratio drops to 80:20 play:study and when you're about 2100-2200 it should be about 40:60, because there will be a lot more material you need to cover to increase your strength comparatively to when you were 1300. 
However, there's one important thing you should note and that is analysing your own games is NOT considered study and the reason is because it's imperative that you find out what you did wrong each game and try to avoid it the second time. Studying is like doing tactics, studying openings, analysing middlegames and grinding out endgames etc. etc. analysing your own games doesn't count. 
Many strong chess players have advocated analysing your own games (without an engine preferably, until you're around 1800 elo). If you need an beginner's guide you can check out this article. The author talks about the fatal reason why weaker players don't become stronger and at the same time gives some instructive advice about annotating your own games (+ freebies :D)! 
Keep us updated about your chess study!

user17: In economics, the idea is to try to equate "marginal utilities," in this case, between playing and studying.
You now seem to feel you are playing too much. So stop playing and start studying. Eventually you may feel that you are playing too little. Then study less and play more.

user2001: There is a difference between playing for fun, training and competing. In general, progress is reached by combining training with competitive games. Playing for fun is gradually removed out of the equation. For example, if you use your blitz games to become better at an opening system, then you are already training. Competitive games are tournament games over the board with classical time controls. There should be at least 9 such games every 3 months. Training should be done with a goal in mind. There are different areas and they should be trained, one at a time. Applying the training in your games is very important. Otherwise the training was pointless. The balance depends on how much time you are investing in chess. If you are playing a lot of blitz games just for fun, it most probably does not contribute to an increased understanding. Training and competing is hard, and hard activities are the most rewarding in terms of progress.

user109: I think you are already on the right track.  Obviously the more you play the more you learn, so even though you may think you are not learning when playing, you are in fact learning something new with every game.  Finding the right balance is subjective, but what I would do is I would learn small things and try to apply them in as many games as possible, basically lather-rinse-repeat.  For example, if you study checkmating pattern(s), you can try to apply some of the patterns you learned to some games.  I would not try to study too much and then apply everything you learned.  In a nutshell, learn a little bit, try to understand it, if you have trouble, just ask here for more clarification and play some games and try to apply what you have learned.  I did this with the Scotch Game, basically applying what I had studied over and over again until I basically became one with the Scotch and comfortable with it.  I was later able to come back and answer a question on here pertaining to the Scotch due to playing, learning, and understanding the opening that I would not have been able to answer before.

390: <p>I have been learning fairly rapidly lately (will probably go about 400 points in about a year), although I am sure that pace will slow with time.</p>

<p>However, my learning is actually slowed down because I like to play too much. That sounds silly because the whole point is to play and have fun. But what happens is I start playing a few games to try to apply what I have learned and then I just keep playing until I get tired and forget about whatever study I was doing. </p>

<p>As much as I like playing it's not as satisfying as learning. I know some like to win, some like to play, but I like to understand. </p>

<p>So, knowing that my goal is to understand as much as possible, how do I get the right balance between studying and trying to apply my studies with games?</p>
 11352: <p>Okay,</p>

<p>I feel like there have already been many good responses regarding the study:play ratio. </p>

<p>There's no correct answer - as a beginner you can't really 'study chess' because you don't know exactly what to study, how to study and you don't have the foundation yet to make certain judgements about why a certain move is right or wrong. Sometimes a move can be so deep that even grandmasters have to think for a few minutes before finding the correct reason why something is played.</p>

<p>One thing is for sure, you must play and you must study. The play:study ratio should decrease you become stronger at chess. So as a beginner, you should spend 90% of your time playing and 10% of your time studying. Playing will give you the best lessons because you will lose and learn a lesson and then you will never lose the same way again. </p>

<p>Once you're about 1300-1400 the ratio drops to 80:20 play:study and when you're about 2100-2200 it should be about 40:60, because there will be a lot more material you need to cover to increase your strength comparatively to when you were 1300. </p>

<p>However, there's one important thing you should note and that is <strong>analysing your own games is NOT considered study</strong> and the reason is because it's imperative that you find out what you did wrong each game and try to avoid it the second time. Studying is like doing tactics, studying openings, analysing middlegames and grinding out endgames etc. etc. analysing your own games doesn't count. </p>

<p>Many strong chess players have advocated analysing your own games (without an engine preferably, until you're around 1800 elo). If you need an beginner's guide you can check out this <a href="http://chessncognac.com/studying-your-own-games-how-and-why-you-should/" rel="nofollow">article</a>. The author talks about the fatal reason why weaker players don't become stronger and at the same time gives some instructive advice about annotating your own games (+ freebies :D)! </p>

<p>Keep us updated about your chess study!</p>
 17: <p>In economics, the idea is to try to equate "marginal utilities," in this case, between playing and studying.</p>

<p>You now seem to feel you are playing too much. So stop playing and start studying. Eventually you may feel that you are playing too little. Then study less and play more.</p>
 2001: <p>There is a difference between playing for fun, training and competing. In general, progress is reached by combining training with competitive games. Playing for fun is gradually removed out of the equation. For example, if you use your blitz games to become better at an opening system, then you are already training. Competitive games are tournament games over the board with classical time controls. There should be at least 9 such games every 3 months. Training should be done with a goal in mind. There are different areas and they should be trained, one at a time. Applying the training in your games is very important. Otherwise the training was pointless. The balance depends on how much time you are investing in chess. If you are playing a lot of blitz games just for fun, it most probably does not contribute to an increased understanding. Training and competing is hard, and hard activities are the most rewarding in terms of progress.</p>
 109: <p>I think you are already on the right track.  Obviously the more you play the more you learn, so even though you may think you are not learning when playing, you are in fact learning something new with every game.  Finding the right balance is subjective, but what I would do is I would learn small things and try to apply them in as many games as possible, basically <code>lather-rinse-repeat</code>.  For example, if you study checkmating pattern(s), you can try to apply some of the patterns you learned to some games.  I would not try to study too much and then apply everything you learned.  In a nutshell, learn a little bit, try to understand it, if you have trouble, just ask here for more clarification and play some games and try to apply what you have learned.  I did this with the <code>Scotch Game</code>, basically applying what I had studied over and over again until I basically became one with the <code>Scotch</code> and comfortable with it.  I was later able to come back and <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/1129/109">answer</a> a question on here pertaining to the <code>Scotch</code> due to playing, learning, and understanding the opening that I would not have been able to answer before.</p>
