How analysing your games with a coach benefits you
If you never had a coach, you might wonder why chess coaches are so obsessed about analysing their students' games. Surely we have the engines to do that?! It must be an old-fashioned thing from coaches who are not really up-to-date, right?
Well, if you only want to know the objective truth about a position, then the engine might be indeed your best friend. But the main point of analysing your games is not to know more about a certain position or the opening you played.
The main point of analysing your games is to know more about your thinking process, and discover your weaknesses in that area.
A well structured thinking process should include the following things:
- Whenever your opponent plays a move, you always notice the threats and changes first. Very simply put, you should absorb the full meaning of their move before you think about yours.
- You always have an opinion about your opponent's moves, and what the best move would be for them. You could take over and play their position any time.
- You think in candidate moves, so you actually choose a move instead of playing your very first idea. If you have only one candidate move, you are clearly aware of it.
- During your calculation, you instantly pick up new forcing moves, like new possible checks and captures. If you don't need them immediately, you store them in your memory for later use.
- You finish calculating lines with an evaluation, like: White is slightly better, Black is winning, etc.
- Your evaluation is also supported by a justification. For example: White is slightly better because he is ahead in development and controls the only open file.
- You combine principled thinking with calculation - that is, you are always aware during calculation what principles are at stake. For example: If I play that, I win material but fall behind in development; or for extra piece activity I have to accept a bad pawn structure, etc.
- You use additional thinking techniques like comparison (Line B is a better version of Line A, because...), or elimination. (Move A loses, Move B loses, so I have nothing else but Move C.)
That is what a coach wants from you in the first place during game analysis. They want to see the signs of structured thinking.
If you want to make your coach drool, just use sentences like the ones below:
My opponent played Qb6, going after the b2-pawn, which must be wrong, as he is already behind development. In my opinion, his best move was castling, when I am only slightly better, due to my modest advantage in development.
My candidate moves were A, B, and C. First I calculated A, as that looks the most principled, bringing a new piece in the attack - but then Black can play so-and-so, winning a pawn, and I didn't feel that I had sufficient compensation for it. Black must be slightly better in that line.
Then I calculated B. My line runs so-and-so. I think the position is objectively about equal, but I didn't like that my king was somewhat weak. So, I decided to play C. That makes the d4-square weak, but Black cannot take advantage ot it, and I have a lot of activity on the kingside, so this must be also at least equal.
Let me give you a concrete example of a possible analysis scenario.
I came across the game below recently. Someone posted it on the forums as a sign of his terrible play. He played the game with White, and we will only check the first few moves.
Supposing that I analyse that game with the White player, I would be glad to hear them pointing out that 5. - Qe7? must be a bad move, as it obstructs Black's development. If they can offer improvements for Black, it is even better. (As mentioned earlier, having an opinion about the opponent's play is important. It is a clear sign of mature thinking.)
Next, I would test the student with the following line: instead of playing 6. - Nf6, I would try sticking to the pawn with 6. - g5?!, and if 7. d4, then 7. - g4?. I would like to see their initial reaction to that - whether they take it as a completely reasonable try, or whether they realize how unprincipled Black's play is.
If they do, can they refute my dodgy play by finding the right moves? (If not, they really have to work on their attacking skills; and also on applying the principles in their thinking.)
And mainly, I would be really curious to hear their opinion about 7. Qe2?, which is a mistake. Hopefully they had other candidate moves at that point, like 7. d4, 7. d3, 7. Nd5. (If they didn't, then this is definitely an area to work on.) Did they realize during the game that 7. d4 is by far the most desirable and principled move?
If yes, did they make a serious effort to make that move work? What was the line they calculated, and why did they give up on 7. d4? Did they give in too easily? (A typical problem, not overcoming resistance.) Did they actually feel during the game that they were giving in by not playing 7. d4?
And if not 7. d4, why didn't they play the low-effort move 7. d3, which at least guarantees that White wins the f4-pawn back? Does that mean that they just react to threats without thinking?
And so on, until we finish the entire game.
Of course, it takes two to tango. Serious analysis is an exhausting process, and the student has to get used to open up their mind to gain any real benefits from it; and there are people who seem to be naturally resistant to that.
Also, a lot of players (including most of my teammates in the Szentlőrinc team) have acquired the bad habit of checking their games immediately with an engine. After that, they simply show the engine lines with an air of authority. Nobody dares to discuss the lines, as this is already engine stuff; and they don't say anything about their thinking. The engine shows some improvements, and all they get from the "analysis" is the following revelating conclusion:
Next time I have to play better.
And with that, a precious opportunity of self-improvement is wasted...
If you are interested, feel free to send me a private message here or on hogata11@gmail.com, and we can arrange a free, non-committal video call to discuss your goals and get to know each other.
