Should I focus my study on my weakest piece type, or study broadly?
These answers restate the rules implemented by our open-source engine, which follows the WXF laws and is regression-tested against the official 110-diagram repetition casebook. Where an answer refers to a specific position, that position lives on the linked reference page, where the build verifies it against the engine before publishing.
Direct answer
Targeted work on a genuine, repeated weakness usually pays off faster than broad study spread evenly across everything, but only once you have actually identified a real pattern from your own games rather than guessing which piece you are worst with. Broad study is the right default until a specific weakness becomes clear; after that, narrowing in is more efficient.
How to tell if you actually have a specific weak spot
Look back over your recent losses for a repeated cause, consistently misjudging cannon screens, consistently losing horses to simple forks, rather than assuming one exists. A genuine pattern across several games is worth targeting directly; a single bad loss is not evidence of a specific weakness, just a single mistake.
What targeted study actually looks like
If cannons are the recurring problem, deliberately seek out puzzles and positions built around cannon tactics rather than a random mixed set, and review your own games specifically for cannon-related misjudgements. Once that specific weakness genuinely improves, broaden back out rather than staying narrow indefinitely. See deciding what to study next for the wider decision this sits inside.
Related questions
How do I know when a weakness is fixed enough to move on?
When the specific mistake stops showing up in your recent games, not after a fixed number of study sessions.
Is it bad to only ever study broadly and never target anything?
Not bad exactly, just slower than it needs to be once a real, identifiable pattern exists in your own games.
.