Beginner question: Is there a "method" for analyzing games? (ie. not by computer)

hi all

I know that chess.com has online analysis and a lot of players use their own software to go over games. Is that pretty much the norm, or does anybody do the analysis themselves by hand; and if they do, is there a particular methodology, a sequence of steps or things they do to figure out where they made mistakes? I ask in the interest of learning how to understand and recognize these things myself, hands on...and honestly, I often have a hard time deciphering what the computer is telling me. Except when it shouts blunders out in big bold letters...like today, the easy analysis told me I missed a huge opportunity that could have won me the game, and when I looked at it, there it was as big as a truck. But I didn't see it during the game, and if I hadn't had the computer analyze it, might I have missed it in review? This is what I want to start learning, a process for reviewing my games, if there is such a thing. The old masters sure didn't have high technology helping them analyze and annotate (not that I'm anywhere near a master). As always, this poor patzer would much appreciate any experienced advice.

cheers

Billy S.

The best way to analyze your games is to do your own analysis first, then run it through an engine, and of course its always a good idea to post the game for peer review.

I gotcha...I guess what I'm trying to figure out is how to do my own analysis. All the deep calculating and figuring out which moves that I thought were good at the time were the bad ones...much less my opponent's. Seems like a daunting task; remember I'm still pretty inexperienced and it's intimidating although I know analysis will help me improve my game. Maybe I'm overthinking it. I could try my latest game and submit it.

I always do my own analysis. The first thing I do is compare the moves against a database, for both sides. Typically what I see is that both players played one of the top three most popular moves for the first 5-10 moves, then somebody at some point played a move that was down around the 5th-9th most popular, which usually means there was something wrong with it: weak or an error. The database doesn't explicitly say what is wrong with it, but after following 1-2 database games where that move was played, you see the offending side falling into the same problem, then the situation becomes clear. This method won't highlight tactical errors committed beyond the opening, however. If I weren't so lazy and disdainful of computers I would then run the moves through an analysis program, but so far I haven't felt enough need to do so because the main error usually lies in the opening, meaning within the first 20 moves. I will then make a note about that mistake that in my repertoire, sometimes study it in more depth, then vow never to do that again, if the mistake was mine.

Incidentally, this is the game I mentioned in my first post. 17. g4 is the big blunder that I didn't spot. I'm going to try my hand at analyzing this one, if I can.

Whew, you had *many* tactical and positional errors before then. I'd recommend first looking at 6. Nd5 and understanding thoroughly why that was a mistake.

One other question: in a chess.com game like this one, how do I add annotations and notes in with the listed moves like I've seen elsewhere? Can't figure that out.

Put comments in braces. The following text...

1. e4 e5 {Double King's Pawn Game.}

2. Ne2 {Alapin's Opening.}

...looks like this when I paste it into the PGN option of the game posting option...

You got that right. The fact that you instantly saw that and I didn't shows you how badly I need improvement.

the point is TOO many people Turn ON their Engines and Turn OFF their brain.

If you're still relatively new to chess, a simple process is to go over your game and try to identify 2-3 moves you're really not happy with, and then offer alternatives. Next, you review the game with the engine and see if your alternatives are really better or not.

What's important is that the point is not to find all the mistakes, but to gradually improve your chess thought process, and looking at improvements by yourself could help in this department.

I'm not in your shoes, but for example, from one of your recent games :

A quick check with the engine confirms that the two suggested improvements are valid.

I am in the same boat and am following this with interest.  On a related question, is there any particular software any of you would recommend for use in analyzing games and providing analysis that is user-friendly for a relative newbie such as myself.   I try to analyze my own games, and run them through the computer analysis available here which is the most useful I have come across, but is there anything external that might be of assistance, particularly anything that provides narrative comments rather than just an intimidating string of variant moves.  Thanks for any suggestions.

if you get Fritz you can

use the "explain" every move feature to get a sense of why.

but Don't go to a chess engine for insights as to why some moves are better.  that is Not their use.

instead, chess engines Point you to the "right" move, which may or may not be for reasons that you can understand.  in short, ALL chess engines find the best move by an "intimidating string of variant moves"...

Chess engines will point what good and bad moves, but they do not explain "why"

Billy,

First of all, know that you asked a FANTASTIC question.  Plenty of people offer the advice of analyzing your games without an engine, very few say how to do it.

Here's a possible way to break down a game.  It consists of trying to answer a series of questions about the game.

 Start at the beginning.  Look at the opening moves, and have a database (not an engine, but a database) open while you are doing so.  At what point did you depart from what had been played before?  Were both players following a book line?  At what point did your memory fail you?  Did your opening give you a position you were comfortable playing?

In the middlegame, were you following a certain plan?  Did the plan succeed or fail?  If it failed, was it because of a tactic or did you get the position you were aiming for only to find it wasn't as good as you thought? What were your strategic goals during the middlegame?

If the game reached an engame, an endgame manual may cover that type of endgame.  Were you familiar with the winning/drawing ideas?

Throughout the game, look at each new position as a tactical puzzle.  Did you miss any tactics during the game?  Notice undefended pieces, pins, forks, double attacks etc. that you might have overlooked while playing.

Write down your thoughts on the above questions.  When you are done, run the game through an engine.

Hope this helps!

First a general tips. If you want to get most out of your analysis you should start with analysing your own game without any computer analysis or help from the forum (you should be able to turn of the chess.com computers evaluations). Then you can go through the computer evaluations and see if you can spot the tactical misses you did not find in your first analysis. Then you can go through the computer suggested moves and compared it with your earlier analysis. At your level you are going to miss a lot of tactics so do not despair if you dont see all the tactical misses.

Forums can also give good advice.

I think g4 is a mistake, but not for the same reason that computer think it is. The computer sees a line which i think is way to difficult for you to calculate in a real game (even though you might stumble in to the tactic by chance). What makes g4 bad is that you try to exchange pieces while being down two pieces already. Trading pieces while being down that much just makes it a lot easier for your opponent to win.

In that position Knight e3 sounds like a natural move, where you threatened to play g4 in the next move and trap the Bishop and if he sees this and play g5, you could go back to f5 with the Knight and now the knight cannot be chased away by pawns.