"You should analyse your won games as well." * No. Analyzing won games is fun but does not contribute to improving and is thus a loss of time.
"it could be that you made bad moves and your opponent failed to refute them" * That is right, but as you won the game you will not remember your mistakes.
"Success isn’t achieved by analysing one’s mistakes; it’s achieved by analysing one’s every move." * No. Success is achieved by avoiding mistakes and exploiting opponent's mistakes. You can never lose a game of chess if you manage to avoid making mistakes. You can never win a game of chess unless your opponent makes a mistake and you find a way to exploit that.
‘Why was this move good?’ * Because it was no mistake.
"It’s a mindset that I suspect people are naturally drawn toward." * No, people are naturally drawn toward a mindset to analyse their own wins for hours and drool over their own magnificent moves and see how they would have crushed their poor opponent if he had played differently. As for losses people are naturally drawn towards a mindset to shove them aside and formulate some lame excuse: time trouble, a silly opening, just a stupid error, an annoying opponent...
#21: ‘"You should analyse your won games as well." * No. Analyzing won games is fun but does not contribute to improving and is thus a loss of time.’ ~ That depends on how it’s executed. Drooling over one’s magnificent win? Yes, bad mentality; looking for errors in victories? Good mentality. It’s important to be critical of one’s victories; not brush them aside and think, ‘I won, so it’s time to move on.’
—
‘"it could be that you made bad moves and your opponent failed to refute them" * That is right, but as you won the game you will not remember your mistakes.’ ~ Why do you think that?
—
‘“Success isn’t achieved by analysing one’s mistakes; it’s achieved by analysing one’s every move." * No. Success is achieved by avoiding mistakes and exploiting opponent's mistakes.’ ~ It’s also achieved by optimising one’s good strategies to perfection, by analysing if there was an even better strategy. Otherwise, you may continue to play inferior moves because they worked in a game that you didn’t analyse.
When you analyse a lost game, you may find errors and thus stop playing them; when you don’t analyse a won game, you may continue to play the same errors again and again, and not learn from them for many games, until they cause you to lose. You may utilise them in future won games, which reinforces your belief that they’re good.
—
“‘Why was this move good?’ * Because it was no mistake.” ~ Analyse it to understand why it was good, so you're more likely to spot it in future games. ‘Was there a way to better execute the move?’ ‘Should I have prepared it first?’ ‘Did I make a bad move proceeding this one?’ ‘Was there a move that was better?’
'You may learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win.' - Capablanca
* Time is limited, so better analyse lost games only.
#23: You’ve already used that quote in this thread, so using it again adds nothing to the discussion.
https://lichess.org/forum/game-analysis/what-are-the-most-realistic-ways-i-could-have-better-converted-this-game was the discussion of a game, where there were things for the winner to learn.
"... 19 Rd2? throws away your advantage. 19 Qc4 was the way to hold on to your advantage, ..." - tpr in #2
What constitutes a beginner? I’m 1400 blitz and 1300 rapid.
beginner nor intermediate do not have objective definitions. But in context if lichess 1550 at midpoint so maybe you could there intermediate. But compared to typical club/otb player lichess 1500 is well below average there so maybe intermediate shoudl a roun 1700 - talking of blitz rating add 100 - 200 for rapid rating
Beginner then can indicate strength of time in hobby making it even more vague
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.