Thank you.
P.S. DO NOT TELL TO BUY ANY BOOK.
P.S. DO NOT TELL TO BUY ANY BOOK.
If you have lost a game, then you must at least have made one mistake. Find that mistake. Try and remember what moves you did consider at that point and how you arrived at your mistake. Look at the time you took for the mistake.
Anything else?
Thanks BTW.
‘How should I go about analysing games?’
Surely you know the answer to your question ;) Just keep on doing what you were doing. Analyse your games in the same way as you analyse others’ ones.
Surely you know the answer to your question ;) Just keep on doing what you were doing. Analyse your games in the same way as you analyse others’ ones.
@Tae7 Sure...but I'm talking about NO typing kinda analysing.....
@RiotandCarngeISVenom Well if you don’t want to annotate your games then use opening explorer and ‘learn from your mistakes’ button. At our level, its pretty easy to spot where you went wrong in a game.
A USCF chess coach and Twitch streamer who goes by the name of KingsBischop covered this recently on his stream, and he periodically analyzes viewer games using this technique. It involves replaying the game 3 times.
The first time, you are looking at places where either side clearly played an inaccuracy and then positing candidate moves as improvements from each of those positions. Just jot them down/enter them on the analysis board so that a new branch of the tree is available at each of these points.
The second time through, you will attempt to analyze the consequences of each candidate move in greater depth; if it's a tactical move, to the end of the combination at least; if it's positional, you'll be looking at potential plans and how they can be advanced over the next 4 or 5 moves. All of this is being done WITHOUT COMPUTER ASSISTANCE at this point. Make those moves on the board to "flesh out" the tree, and identify the BEST of your candidate moves at each juncture.
The third playthrough is with computer assistance. Here, you are essentially checking your analysis for errors. Do this with the maximum number of lines included in the analysis, as you want to see the accuracy of all the candidate moves you've identified. It isn't necessary that they be the BEST move in every situation if the difference is only a couple tenths of a pawn; only that it (and all your candidate moves) represent a significant improvement over what occurred in the game.
Properly done, this type of analysis will take at least an hour or two; more for long time control games.
There are prerequisites of course. TACTICS is a huge one. If your tactical strength isn't great, do puzzles a lot. At least as much as you actually play. Otherwise, you'll have difficulty finding good candidate moves.
The first time, you are looking at places where either side clearly played an inaccuracy and then positing candidate moves as improvements from each of those positions. Just jot them down/enter them on the analysis board so that a new branch of the tree is available at each of these points.
The second time through, you will attempt to analyze the consequences of each candidate move in greater depth; if it's a tactical move, to the end of the combination at least; if it's positional, you'll be looking at potential plans and how they can be advanced over the next 4 or 5 moves. All of this is being done WITHOUT COMPUTER ASSISTANCE at this point. Make those moves on the board to "flesh out" the tree, and identify the BEST of your candidate moves at each juncture.
The third playthrough is with computer assistance. Here, you are essentially checking your analysis for errors. Do this with the maximum number of lines included in the analysis, as you want to see the accuracy of all the candidate moves you've identified. It isn't necessary that they be the BEST move in every situation if the difference is only a couple tenths of a pawn; only that it (and all your candidate moves) represent a significant improvement over what occurred in the game.
Properly done, this type of analysis will take at least an hour or two; more for long time control games.
There are prerequisites of course. TACTICS is a huge one. If your tactical strength isn't great, do puzzles a lot. At least as much as you actually play. Otherwise, you'll have difficulty finding good candidate moves.
Here's a few tips:
• Look at ideas from both sides and try to understand the reasoning behind them. At key points in the game, try to figure out who stands better and why.
• Look for tactical turning points – when did the initiative change and why, examine each exchange and define how it changes the structure and plans, what weaknesses appear in the position or pawn structure, how are the pieces for mobility and board control, etc.
• Look for where you made mistakes. First understand the tactical or positional motif present and what it was that you missed. Then ask what move or series of moves would have prevented it, considering possible replies by your opponent. Finally, figure out why you missed seeing it - were you playing to fast, was it an unfamiliar tactic, did you fail to consider forcing moves from your opponent, etc.
• Review your opening play against a database of master level games or opening theory/explorer. Look for where you diverged from the mainlines and try to understand if your move was decent, or why the moves played by stronger players was better.
• Use a physical board or the analysis board, and physically play over the game and any corrections that you find to help cement it in. Use the engine analysis and try to understand the moves it is suggesting, but don't incorporate moves that you don't understand (try your own replies and see what the engine suggests against it to help you understand what's going on).
• Look at ideas from both sides and try to understand the reasoning behind them. At key points in the game, try to figure out who stands better and why.
• Look for tactical turning points – when did the initiative change and why, examine each exchange and define how it changes the structure and plans, what weaknesses appear in the position or pawn structure, how are the pieces for mobility and board control, etc.
• Look for where you made mistakes. First understand the tactical or positional motif present and what it was that you missed. Then ask what move or series of moves would have prevented it, considering possible replies by your opponent. Finally, figure out why you missed seeing it - were you playing to fast, was it an unfamiliar tactic, did you fail to consider forcing moves from your opponent, etc.
• Review your opening play against a database of master level games or opening theory/explorer. Look for where you diverged from the mainlines and try to understand if your move was decent, or why the moves played by stronger players was better.
• Use a physical board or the analysis board, and physically play over the game and any corrections that you find to help cement it in. Use the engine analysis and try to understand the moves it is suggesting, but don't incorporate moves that you don't understand (try your own replies and see what the engine suggests against it to help you understand what's going on).
#6 I just saw this and I have to add that nothing in life is free. You'll get out of it what you put into it. If you don't want to put a lot of effort into analysis, you can't really expect to gain a deeper understanding from your mistakes.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.