can some one show me to really analyze a game and what are all procedures of it
There is no exact procedure. You got to know at least the basics of positional/strategic chess to come up a very good evaluation to any position. The chess coach, who has the better understanding usually analyzes the game. And you as the fighter would give a better fight when the same position arises again.
- Although there is no exact procedure, excellent books exist that give methods. For example, John Purdy's books and Zonoboro sky's book on the middle game. Forgive my spelling. Hope that helps.
Maybe try: The Improving Annotator
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708234314/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review786.pdf
The World's Most Instructive Amateur Game Book
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708092834/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review872.pdf
Nwap111 meant for that second author Eugene A. Znosko-Borovsky. He has a few books out there.
Just get in there and analyze it. Don't worry how somebody else would do it. Do it yourself.
Analysis Paralysis
Today American Grandmaster Celticfreeze asked the forums a rhetorical question to which he already knows the answer in an effort to postpone even longer the analysis of his own games.
This is eerie. It's like he knows our every thought.
Basically you're trying to find all the moments when the evaluation changed. So, usually beginning after the opening is over, you ask yourself who you think is better, white or black.
Then on move, lets say 20, you find yourself having a different opinion. So now you go backwards and try to figure out the moment that it changed.
This is harder than it sounds, and probably not so useful for a lower rated player. Instead just use an engine to show you the big tactical mistakes, and instead of analyzing the whole game, pick 1 or 2 interesting (or confusing) positions and analyze those specific positions instead. First write out your own analysis, then check it with an engine, then post it online for feedback (or show it to a friend).
When I was maybe 1300 I remember there was one rook endgame I was interested in. So I took that position and played it out against myself a dozen times, and wrote down a lot of analysis.
A lot of it was wrong, but that's not the point. Your moves don't have to be perfect, they just have to be interesting. Ask yourself questions and try to find the answers.
Annotations worthy of backyard professor... all except the last one. BYP never realizes his previous evaluations may have been incorrect!
Just get in there and analyze it. Don't worry how somebody else would do it. Do it yourself.
Well, yeah, but if you don't know what you're doing and how to approach it, it becomes an exercise of little value other than 'I've done it!'.
I can sit down and solve a quantum equation. Will it be right or will what I do be the right way to do it? Nope.
It's like playing the game, but this time you have all the time you need. You use all the evaluation methods you'd use in a match, but what's even better is that game analysis can teach you new evaluation methods, new aspects of the game...that's sort of the point. Just take your time, and give it your best effort.
It's part of chess study, and it goes hand in hand with matches and lessons.
Using the computer also helps a lot, trying to understand why it recommends the moves it does. But don't get thrown off your element. A computer is a computer, and you're you.
Meaning don't try to play like the computer, just understand the why, and boom you're learning.
if you don't know what you're doing and how to approach it, it becomes an exercise of little value other than 'I've done it!'.
That's not the way to look at it. Of course your analysis is not very likely to be topflight. As stig suggests, that doesn't matter. The important point is that you get in there and start moving pieces around and asking questions. Should you have done something else there? Was there something better? And (of course) did my opponent have better?
Just look at the way they do it in books, if you need some sort of template to get started.
