Analyse the own games / comment the analysis

We all know that without serious game analysis we will not improve that much.  This is one of the main recommendations of good coaches / strong players: go through your games without the help of an engine, and try to find the mistakes from both sides and being objective when you search for those mistakes.

I think I don't have to explain in details the benefits of such analysis. I will only quote Axel Smith from his book  "Pump Up Your Rating". Using an own method, in just two years he boosted his rating from 2093 to 2558, and in the meantime he is already a GM:

"When you analyse a game, you practice your ability to calculate and you learn openings, middlegames and maybe endgames as well. Even more importantly, you learn how to find relevant ideas and details in a position and thus you practice decision-making, the process of selecting a move. That is, basically, everything you need when you sit down at the board! And if it's your own game, you are additionally noticing what kinds of mistake you usually make" (Axel 2013, p. 165).

To get the most out of an analysis session, Axel recommends to collect the findings in a "List of Mistakes". He said he started doing that even before he had an Elo rating, and "and it has been the most important training form for me ever since" (Axel 2013, p. 165).

Perhaps the best method to do this job is with the help of a player who is as strong as you (perhaps a friend) or a coach. But even discussing the game with a weak player is better than doing the job alone.

And here my ideal: what about a small group of players  working together in such analysis? I mean, we could make a club for players between 1000 and 1800, and every week one of us has to analyse his own game without the help of an engine and comment most moves. After this the other members of the group will comment the analysis. Subsequently, we all start an engine and go trough the game again, commenting all moves and helping each other to make a list of common mistakes.

Not using an engine in the first analysis should be taken very seriously, something like not using engines during the games. As we all usually do a quick blunder check with an engine after the game, probably we all have to play new games to have new material for the analysis, or take a game played some years ago. Nothing shorter than rapid, better at least 1 hour or Daily Chess.

We will stay motivated, as we have to post a game and we all have to analyse the analysis. And we all have to make a "List of Mistakes" (I have the book, so I can summarize Axel's ideas - or you buy the book).

We are already two players, and we are looking for other people who are interested in participate. If we have at least 4 players, I can start the club. 

Somebody interested?

Count me in!

For the record, there are already quite a few groups that encourage their members to submit games and analysis.

I'm sure there's always room for more.

Hmmmmm, perhaps you didn’t read above that analysis of the own games is one of the main recommendations of strong players and coaches.

And AFAIK Axel didn’t say that he is the first player to say that a player should analyse the own games.

(Is only me having the impression that DSkye is always making accusations or criticising other people based on nothing? The guy is absolutely incredible!).

Can you recommend us one that you know?

I already have, in another forum that you participate in. 

Try Chess Improvers, which is run by @jlconn. There are MANY others. Find one that suits you.

Thanks

Blablablablablablablablablablablablablsblabla

“ Konstantinopolsky was the first one recommending endgame training for novices”.

You always surprise me with your ignorance! Tarrasch and Capablanca are notorious proponents of beginning chess lessons with endgames, although they never wrote that beginners should ignore the opening. Tarrasch for example in his Das Schachspiel (first published 1931!) explains on pages 311 to 479 how to play the opening. 

DSky, the new Capablanca AND the best historian of chess! Is getting better and better!

I hate to agree with @DeirdreSkye, fortunately, I don't have to. 

I don't know of any student Capa ever had in person. On that point. @DeirdreSkye is almost certainly correct.  But the advice Capablanca wrote does precede Konstantinopolsky's work. So does Lasker's written work. 

Konstantinopolsky doesn't get credit for the advice, the world champions who recommended it first do. He does get credit for being a first rate trainer, and the trainer of David Bronstein. Bronstein, for those who don't know, was one of the great pioneers of the Soviet School of dynamic chess. He and Geller helped to turn the King's Indian from a joke opening into the feared counter-attacking weapon it is today.

Has anyone ever been embarrassed by their own analysis?

Constantly...I am without a doubt my own worst critic. 

Here is the club on game analysis

https://www.chess.com/club/back-to-the-1970s