I wonder if it is possible to find a good way to analyze my games?

Hi Bert. If you like your games to be analyzed in human language... send it to us (your friends..)

2 mistakes and 2 blunders in a game isn't bad, that is if not one of the mistakes is so grave that you lose... How many mistakes did your opponent get? At our level Bert, there is "always" a couple of mistakes...

Some of the "mistakes" or "blunders" messages you get from computers is not of a grave or too bad nature. Let's say you have managed to be a pawn up, and make a move that lose that extra pawn, and you could have hold the pawn with another move. Even if you gain some positional from giving the pawn back, many computers would calculate that as an error. And the computer doesnt know you and your playing style, and doesn't count in which condition a game is played. In a 5 minute game, you could do a "messing up" move, that in fact isn't very good, but it confuse your opponent so he doesn't see straight, or lose on time. The computer doesnt recognize this. "A bad move is a bad move, pronto basta!"

You get a ? for 10.e5. And you may wonder why? When I look at a friends game (or my own for that matter) there is the other problem.. I have feelings, ideas, thoughts... but not the computer-brain linear thinking style... So my thinking is just that.. ideas. Thats why I use the words "opinions", "I think you are"...) etc.

When I first look upon 10.e5 to me it looks as you do a pawn move without too much sting, and you are not finished developing. If your opponent exchanges the pawn by 10...dxe5 11.Qxe5 you can see that you have a vulnerable queen, that soon has to be moved, and still your bishop close up for connection between your rooks. And they are not in their maximum place eighter. Black could do 11...0-0 and be ready for a nasty attack.. Luckily he doesn't do so, and after 10...Ng4 your "blunder" is nullified, the mistake is no longer a mistake (in my opinion)

11...0-0 is the right time for castling, since the pawn threat against e7 is empty, your queen is hanging.

The line 12.Re1+ Kd8 13. Bf4 Nf6 14.Rad1 shows "attacking with devolpment" or "development by attacking" (your choise) as 12.Qxg7 is a pawn, but you take a developed piece away from center, and still neglect the devlopment. The queen also get in trouble by Be5 (??) and even more trouble with 0-0-0! But... as long as he doesn't make the right moves in reply, your "mistakes" is not visible playing through the finished game.

If you look close on your opponents replies, there is a little lesson to be learned in the "tunnel-view" of the eye (or mind). You threat his bishop 11.exd6, but he see only the threat not that it is empty. You play 12.Qxg7 and he reply with Be5 to save the Rh8.. and miss the 0-0-0 saving. A threat can be met in many (at least 3) ways, moving the threated piece, making a counter threat, ingore it (continue your plan) making a move to defend the vulerable piece...

At our level Bert, many times an opponent handle a threat by the most obvious move and "first comes into mind" move, centering view of the eye only in the nearest area around the piece. If your opponent lift perspective over the board to a higher level, and see the whole board there may be better way to respond. At move 10 in most games, priority should be on development and placing of the pieces. In many games you shuld not attack before ready for attack, as "one-piece attacks" is for Kasparovs and Topalovs...

If it is any comfort to you I have stacks of games where computers would give me red marks, some I lost, some I won.. I would most likely have played as you here too, and not seen everything of this over the board. But you asked me why computer gave you red marks, right?

Hopefully you can use som of this..

your friend nils

Wow good point airbus. To doric, analyse your games first, to see if you can find anything that you can improve or where you think you went wrong before you look it up in the computer. 

i find that analysis only works if your opening has failed. then you must check for your mistakes and try not to do it again. in middle and end games i find that analysing games doesn`t help that much , as you will probably never have the exact same position again.

i find that tactics trainer is much better for mid and end games because it teaches you to spot weakness, also it trains you in checkmate senarios with different peices . then as you start getting familiar with these positions , you start looking for these attacks in the games you are playing .

hope it helps