The best is to analyze master games with help of good annotations - like e.g. in Kasparov's "My great predecessors"
You can find many books with well-annotated grandmasters games (many GMs published books covering their best games - I really enjoy following their analysis as the annotations frequently cover details not to be mentioned by others analysing the same game)
You could try that. I'm not sure if it really fits in this forum, but hey, it's game analysis still right? :-P
When analysing master games, pick ones with good annotations already done. Play through the game first without annotations at all, and do your analysis there. Then look at the game again with annotations, and see where your analysis diverges. Think carefully about why your analysis is different, and whether your lines are inferior or possible alternatives.
If at that point you really think your analysis is sound and a good alternative... Post it here! I always thought having a voice of reason (or chess coach) appear and tell me "your analysis here is wrong/better because..." would be really handy when I studied games.
Meta analysis requires its own meta analysis requires meta meta analysis and so on. It's enough to drive you mad!
Well, meta-analysis would actually just be other people picking out flaws and weaknesses in your analysis, showing you what you need to improve on in your thought process. Valuable.
Meta-meta-analysis is politely, "a public discussion" or rudely, "forum clusterfight".
Analysing your own games is probably more useful, because it points out where you go wrong. Master games analysis is best done with a "guess the move" approach, where you try to guess the move every time and afterwards check with the game and try to understand why they played another move.
When analysing master games, pick ones with good annotations already done. Play through the game first without annotations at all, and do your analysis there. Then look at the game again with annotations, and see where your analysis diverges. Think carefully about why your analysis is different, and whether your lines are inferior or possible alternatives.
If at that point you really think your analysis is sound and a good alternative... Post it here! I always thought having a voice of reason (or chess coach) appear and tell me "your analysis here is wrong/better because..." would be really handy when I studied games.
Bears repeating.
In order to improve my chess play I've decided to try and analyze some master games. Unfortunetly, I realized that analyzing a game is not enough to improve, it is necessary to make "good" analysis. Therefore I was wondering if it were possible to post my analysis of some master games then have my analysis reviewed and analyzed. If so, I will post an analyzed game about once a week for 6 six weeks.