Suggest me how to improve my game analysis

Today I miserably lost a terrible 15+10 game where I played too fast and too lazily without calculating even the most forcing lines for some reason.

Playing a Bowdler Attack I should have had a better understanding of the position than my opponent, I felt so bad that I decided to analyze my game in depth for more than 4 hours.

I think my opening and mid-game analysis may be more or less fine, but I feel like my end game analysis is a complete disaster. The reasons behind my blunders appear to be my inability to calculate not-so-forcing lines of 10 or 15 moves depth.

Can you criticize my analysis pointing out how can I improve to analyze my games?

I should add that this analysis was computer aided.

Well first issue is playing the bowdler attack against the sicilian 😅 No but on a srs note, i think you and your opponent played a pretty decent game for 1100. I have one advice. Play more aggressive in the opening. Apply the morphy principle. People are far more likely to blunder under pressure. Considering your oponent is far away from castling and you aren't I would go 5. Bb5 with the idea to trade it off with the oponents knight as it is a defdnder of e7 and as quick as possible castle. Bring the rook and queen to the e file. That way your oponent cant easly castle. You see the bishop on b3 is pretty bad in the bowler opening and would be better Trading it off. Your oponent is forced to find a string of only moves which is not likely at our level with this plan.

@Daniel0037 since the light-squared bishop adds pressure to Black's position on the b5 square by pinning the knight to the king, exchanging it would not be a positional mistake, simplifying the position and allowing Black to consolidate the center with three pawns even if two of them are doubled?

I have not engine checked this due to the engine usually suggesting "unhuman" moves but I imagine this position would be really annoying for black. It's not really about doing what the engine thinks is perfect but to make it as hard as possible for your opponent.

Never release tension in the center too early and never allow your opponent too much play in the endgame. I hope the analysis helps, if you have any questions write me, I also accept students.

Sorry, but there is no Morphy principle to be found here. Morphy would take Black on any day, Black has the bishop pair and the entire center and White's queenside is underdeveloped.

I disagree. The pressure you Apply on the uncastled king very early on make it so black can very easly go wrong. It forces Black to respond in a defensive way which is part of the morphy principle.

Back to the analysis: I am baffled by the amount of double question marks you're throwing around. The "??" symbol should be used for huge blunders, not for every visible mistake. Use just one or two per game, not two dozen.

What you put so complicated in a paragraph is called initiate. However, if it is only based on a few 1-move threats, it won't last very long, especially, if these threats can be parried with development moves and the aggressor is otherwise underdeveloped.

I wish I could just use one or two double question marks (for the side I'm playing) in each game, but as you can see, this was mostly a carnival of blunders.

After a "??" one side completely loses the advantage or worse, goes from winning/drawing to losing.

Could you point out some moves that you think don't deserve this annotation?

Rd4, Nxb3, axb3, Rxd3 and Rd8 are not blunders, most of these moves do not lose by force.

The guy who started this topic is playing black though as can be seen from the usernames lol

4 hours studying a game is wild

It's rock bottom

Then I must be missing something

Hi!

I think you had a difficult task defending and your opponent played well. But still 50...h3! guaranteed equality since you will crown your pawn too. Not sure if you considered it in your analysis.

Game analysis is very important for your progress. Best if done with the help of a stronger player or a teacher/coach. Comp analysis is not enough especially when it comes to strategic planning of the opening and middlegame, psycological factorsand other important topics.

Good luck!

3...d5 and stats are already 42:53 in 1.2m games, and your second move had low performing stats too.

I don't fully trust stockfish. very often, its top move performs horribly, sometimes even losing over the board. i like using amateur databases to study theory and see what people are ACTUALLY playing in the real world, and what performs best.

I may be biased in favor of the smith morra gambit because I play it, but it DOES have nice 52:44 WINNING stats in 6 million games rated 1600-2000.

you'd be better off getting rid of what you're playing and try a main line

the fianchetto variation has good stats too at 53:43 in 1.8m games

Are you asking for advice on this game? Sound more like you are asking for advice on how to analyze in general?

I thought you did a great job on this game, very thorough, but 4 hours is a lot right?

Usually I don't spend 4 hours analyzing. My approach is:

1. Check where I went wrong in the opening. Maybe I feel I just made a wrong move & the solution is remember (I never go more than one or two moves on opening mistake, I'll learn deeper as I play it more), maybe I realize I don't understand the opening ideas & need to watch some lectures.
2. Check my blunders (now a days it's mistakes but at 1200 it was blunders) & my opponents. Understanding how badly your typical opponent plays helps you be on the look out in future.
3. Any key pawn moves I missed (this is typically the hardest to understand for me)

I think you can do the above in 20-30 min analysis & it'll help a lot.