How to analyze a game

I am going to start analyzing my games, without computer assistance (edit- I plan on using a computer after I go through the game first).  I would like to know how other players go about the analyzation process.

Just curious... Why the prohibition against computer-aided analysis?  Personally, I find that the act of analyzing a game with an engine to be very educational.  The trick is to keep going till you actually understand why the engine is suggesting the alternatives it does. 

Sans computer, I'd be pretty much reduced to kibbutzing with my opponent after the game--a worthy activity, but pretty shallow compared to what an engine can do. 

Left to my own devices, analyzing is just using the same limited tool that I had at my disposal when I played the game, albeit with some hindsight.  Chances are I'm still not going to notice that mate-in-four that I missed in the heat of battle.

I sometimes flip the board to watch the game from another perspective. I think trying al sorts of variations and doing things the other way when you weren't sure.

To really analyze your mistakes, mostly it's obvious around where something turned wrong. Analyzing a few moves before and really go in-depth. If you see where it went wrong you's know what to improve.

ps. Sometimes when things aren't so obvious it's really helpful to use the analysis forum:)

Sorry, I guess I'm at a loss, as you may have been able to guess from my first post on this thread. 

This is correspondence chess, so I really don't see much difference between what you can do in your head (or on an analysis board) after a game that's so different from what you can do during the game (apart from your opponent already having shown you some spots where you messed up... again, the 'hindsight' thing).

Maybe I'm just too computer-dependent on this front.  :-) 

You're underestimating the effect of relieved pressure. When you no longer feel you have to find a good move, it's much easier to do so.

The hindsight thing does help too, building expirience that one day evolves into foresight ;)

Yeah, I can see definite value in putting some thought into it before firing up the engine.  To the engine's credit, however, I've found your statement that "we all know when blunders happen after the fact" is not always the case; indeed, one of the biggest eye-openers I regularly find when doing engine-aided analysis are those subtle blunders that neither the blunderer nor his opponent noticed at the time.  Those sorts of moments might be missed by a human retrospective that is usually too heavily biased by actual outcomes rather than latent possibilities.

Anyway, seuss68 isn't really talking about locking his computer up and going it alone permanently, so again, I'd agree there's learning value in doing a wholly human post-mortem before bringing in the big guns.

Fritz is the only thing I miss about PCs, but I definitely still miss it...  :-\ 

Ok, pardon my ignorance, but I have yet to use any analysis engine (as most of the people I play against can probably attest to with their victories :) ).  I hear a lot about analyzing games after the fact, and everyone says that using a computer DURING the game is cheating.  Well, I'm not looking to cheat, but I would like to know how to analyze the games I lost so that I don't make the same mistakes again.  Is there something here at Chess.com that accomplishes this, or do I need to buy and instal some other software?

Thanx

Most commercial chess software will allow you to paste in the PGN record of a game you played here and then use an 'Analyse Game' feature to have the computer go (usually backwards) through the game and enter alternative moves in the spots where the player's move was poor.

Personally, I find it more useful to just put the software into analyse mode (so that it's thinking but not playing) and then just move forward through the game looking at the engine's evaluation as I go, then I enter my own comments and new lines of alternative moves as they become clear to me.  That method is a bit less passive for the human, and I think I get more out of the process.

Fritz 11, as soon as I purchase it.  For now it is just me.

I've talked about this issue on this forum before:

When you use an analysis engine, you generally want the best one (When you want a training partner, there are other features which will be more interesting).

Fritz 11 is... well, too far behind its contemporaries in playing strength, and even tactically, other engines have started to calculate the correct lines more deeply than it has. It's too far behind now (and yes, the difference in evaluation and analytical help is huge, when compared with the others).

In fact, Fritz 11 is about the same strength (maybe just a tad bit stronger) as the latest Toga, which is totally freeware:)

As for commercially available engines: The latest versions of Rybka, Naum, Hiarcs, Shredder, Zappa (this is one engine I do not recommend, despite having very good play, but that is the topic for another discussion)

are all better than Fritz 11.

Rybka 2.3.2a is far stronger than anything else offered today, with Naum 3 a relatively close contester.

Fritz's only "advantage" is the automatic analysis feature offered by the GUI, but since the best way to use an engine for analysis is not that automatic at all (actually it's a bad way. It's nice as an extra, but it won't help you improve much), I wouldn't say that's much of a reason to get it.

As far as the variations suggested by different engines, Fritz 11 is seriously worse in many positions (it really plays too many positions very poorly, when compared with other engines).

Heh indeed there have been many discussions on this subject on and off this site, and we can expect many more such discussions...

My opinion is that it depends on how you use it. If all you do is press the analyze button and wait for miracles, it's awful.

If you use it interactively, suggesting moves, lines, looking at the lines it gives and considering its evaluation at the end of those lines, playing those lines to the end and see if the evaluation changes, suggest alternatives of your own (before or during those lines, check your own ideas deeper with the computer, even if they were not suggested by the computer etc. I believe you can benefit a lot from it.

Analyzing the position yourself before ever using the computer and only using it afterwards to see what you keep missing in similar positions is also a good idea in my opinion.