THE best training ratio?

for your refernce : AI Overview
tacticspecker.com (often referred to as ChessPecker) is an online chess tactics trainer built around the Woodpecker Method.
The platform is designed to help chess players sharpen their tactical vision and build lasting pattern recognition through deliberate, structured puzzle practice.
Key Features
• Custom Puzzle Sets: Users can generate personalized training sets filtered by tactical themes, specific difficulty ranges, or a total number of puzzles.
• Cyclical Learning: The tool focuses on solving the same custom puzzle sets repeatedly. This repetition is the core concept of the Woodpecker Method, designed to move calculation patterns into long-term muscle memory.

Tactics: you cannot study tactics. Tactics puzzles are overrated. Best way to train tactics is from your own games, or from annotated grandmaster games.
Calculation: you cannot study calculation. Best way to train calculation is from your own games, or from annotated grandmaster games.
Endgames: Yes, you can study endgames, e.g. from Fundamental Chess Endings - Müller & Lamprecht
Strategy: the best way to study strategy is from your own games, or from annotated grandmaster games. A book can help.
Openings: not really useful.

@tpr said ^

Tactics: you cannot study tactics. Tactics puzzles are overrated. Best way to train tactics is from your own games, or from annotated grandmaster gai use the word practice for practical areas of chss and learn for theoretical areas ,anyways what do you think of this plan for each them ecept tactics i use online courses books, or multi sequnce moves as puzzles, that have various themes like i learn them from this site : https://chessalyz.ai/trainers it has various in buillt trainers that i usually prefer over normal puzzles
@tpr what do you say about this? also about openeing i understand openinung but i do have to study openeings a bit even if its minimal

I have no high regard of these trainers. Old fashioned play and analysis look better to me.

@tpr said ^

I have no high regard of these trainers. Old fashioned play and analysis look better to me.

uh okay but if you dont really understand these new things in short they give you random positions from your or GM games with longer contuinations and provide you calculation tree , and train it in a spaced repitition system- for spaced learning am using a hybrid of new trainers and old fashioned books heres an example :
@tpr ,what would you say?

"what would you say?"

• Well if it works for you it should be fine.
  I am of the opinion that after 200 hours like Lasker said you should reach 2000 rating.
  With your heavy regime of 34 hours per week, you should reach 2000 in 6 weeks.
  If you do, then your method is fine.
  If you do not, then your method is not effective.

@tpr said ^

"what would you say?"

• Well if it works for you it should be fine.
  I am of the opinion that after 200 hours like Lasker said you should reach 2000 rating.
  With your heavy regime of 34 hours per week, you should reach 2000 in 6 weeks.
  If you do, then your method is fine.
  If you do not, then your method is not effective.

FIDE or liches obviolsy in reality FIde takes longer but the skil for 2000 FIDE , is six weeks enough considering hyperinflation in indian juniors in classical FIDE tournaments? @tpr

"FIDE or liches obviolsy"

• I mean 2000 lichess rapid.

"in reality FIde takes longer"

• Yes even at K = 40 you gain +20 from a win against a peer.

"is six weeks enough"

• Lasker said 200 hours. At your regime of 34 hours per week it is 6 weeks.

@tpr said ^

Yes even at K = 40 you gain +20 from a win against a peer.

how long for fide?

"how long for fide?"

• If you have a FIDE rating and are under 20 age, then you have K = 40.
  At K = 40 you gain +20 per win against a peer.
  So depending on your present FIDE rating it can take the according number of games.
  If you do not yet have a FIDE rating, then 2 tournaments suffice to reach a rating like your strength.