Feedback on analysis

Hello,

I've really been approaching chess with an improvement-oriented approach lately rather than a victory-oriented approach. I've been playing slower time controls (15+15, mostly), and I've been analyzing my games. At first, I used stockfish to help with the analysis, but I think it actually slows the development of my understanding of the game. So, for the last few games, I've been analyzing them without any assistance from stockfish.

I've also been setting realistic goals for myself for each game. For example, my goal in my latest game was to make it 30 moves without making any blunders due to undefended pieces. I succeeded in that goal even though I lost the game! For my next game, my goal is to again make it 30 moves without blundering any undefended material *and* to analyze all of the legal checks my opponent can make before every move I make.

I'm mostly posting here to get some feedback on my games and on my own analysis of my games. I want to know:
1. If there are some particular things I should be focusing on that are oddly absent from my analysis.
2. If I ought to be setting other goals for myself when I play.

Here are my analyses: lichess.org/study/CdcfV86N

i wouldnt recommend playing 19 correspondence games at the same time, u wont be able to go deep into the calculation and remember the lines the next day with so many games.

Thanks for the advice. I've also found it overwhelming.

I think that you are focusing to much on one plan in your games, you forget about the rest. It is good to have a plan to orientate yourself, but I suggest being open to other possibilities.
It is a good idea to play slower games and analyse them by yourself, but it would be a good idea to ask stronger players for feedback.

In a chess game, the masters are not limited to simple considerations, such as: I saw an attack on a piece — I defended it. Examine the game masters and read the comments. If you do not understand the game of the masters, and their comments are incomprehensible, then your general intellectual level does not allow you to improve in our game.

This sounds like a great idea and is definitely the first step to major improvement. One step I used to take when I was first improving was to look at literally every single legal move that would be possible after my planned move, just to make sure I wasn't making any really silly mistakes.

The cool thing is that once you do it for a while it eventually starts to become subconscious and you will do it automatically. And that point, when you no longer give away material or miss straight forward ideas, is the bare starting point before you can start getting into the really fun stuff in this game.

Good luck!

@ujcn
I think your comment is completely incorrect.
Certainly, a certain level of intelligence is needed to play chess, but whether or not one can understand a grandmaster's comments on a game has almost nothing to do with general intelligence.
One would struggle to understand a grandmaster's comments because one has less experience and practice in the game of chess.

Read Alexander Kotov Book "Think like Grandmaster"Im sure it would help you for your improvement!

@Irishman964
Quote:
It would be difficult to understand the comments of the grandmaster, because he has less experience and practice in the chess game.
Answer:
To develop an initial level of understanding of the game of chess without a book, as a guide, to the level of a grandmaster, you need to live several lives.
How many games did the neural network AlphaZero play before the match with the Stock fish?

@ujcn I understand what you're saying. Indeed, I would much rather think of the game the way that grandmasters do than the simpler terms that I think in (in terms of captures, checks, trades, hanging pieces, simple tactics, etc.). I have been reading through David Bronstein's commentary on the 1953 Zurich tournament. It's been a very interesting read. I understand and agree with Bronstein's commentary most of the time, but I don't think that understanding is enough to allow me to apply the knowledge to my own games. This is especially the case when my main struggles with the game *are* at the simpler level. Focusing on minor piece imbalances, space, initiative, and pawn structure are doubtless important aspects of the game, but I'm still hanging pieces and failing to notice one-move mating threats, so I feel like I have bigger issues.

Thanks for your input!