Your opponent was up material with a successful plan. Engine analysis simply points out tactical errors. Human analysis points out where you went wrong strategically.
How can I use Analysis to improve my game?
Sort:
May 26, 2017
0
#3
Just because an engine says you "only" made 3 inaccuracies, doesnt mean thats all that happened. Engines dont have an understanding of many things that go on in a game, like tempo, pawn structures, strategy, space. That is why positional understanding is so important and will come with time, experience, and practice.
10.Nh4 loses a pawn. Now youre down a pawn, and give black a central pawn/space advantage.
11.Nf3 has moved the same piece 3 times in 11 moves. Thats 2 wasted tempo.
13.Re1 gives black the bishop pair, and gives you doubled pawns.
20.b3 leaves you with a backward pawn (target)
21.Rab1 ties down a major piece to defending a pawn.
25.Ng5 trades off the active knight for the less active bishop.
26.Qc2 now has tied your queen down to defending a pawn.
28.Nd5 trades off the better minor pieces, and destroys your pawn structure. You have pawns on b3-c4-d3-h3 all controlling light squares, and your opponent has a light square bishop.
31.Qa2-32.Qc2 wastes 2 tempo. At this point you were lost.
May 26, 2017
0
#4
If you use MS WIndows, I suggest you download Lucas Chess (free, http://www-lucaschess.rhcloud.com/index.html) to get a better idea of how you played than by the Chess.com analysis.
Here is what Stockfish 8 (set to a 12 move depth so I could generate it fast) thought of your overall performance. %ages at the bottom in the 70's indicate the minimum for a fairly well played game:
Today's engines don't tell you: "You should have planned a pawn attack up the middle," etc. but if an engine is telling you the same best move was different than what you played 2 or more times in a row , you can infer that you might have missed the best plan. For example, here's part of your game. Note that Stockfish says 9 d4 was a little better than your move and 10 d4 was a lot better than your move. You should look back at the game and see if an attack that used d4 as either part of the attack or something that aided an attack would have been better for you:
Finally, here's a move-by-move rating list where "!" isn't necessarily a great move, it just agrees with Stockfish's best move, "?" and "??" are not necessarily bad and awful, they are just a lot of pawn equivalents lower in evaluation than the best move. Additionally, note that Stockfish may see a 12-move mate that is not easily accomplished by a human without a mistake and where another move clearly wins for you in the long run - Stockfish may consider that an inaccuracy or a blunder even though it was the best move for you. In any case, the move list, as well as the table above, gives you a general idea of how consistently you are making good moves:
May 26, 2017
0
#5
TalSpin wrote:
Your opponent was up material with a successful plan. Engine analysis simply points out tactical errors. Human analysis points out where you went wrong strategically.
Actually, after the game I see the analysis and usually there are inaccuracies, mistakes and even blunders. When I see them, I get the idea where I went wrong. Sometimes, in case of any inaccuracy I see the alternate line but I think that my move was better because of the idea I had in my mind. Sometimes, I see the inaccuracy and get the idea of how I could have played better. Concluding it, you are right that human analysis is better than computer analysis. But for that I need a mentor or any help by computer. In this particular scenario, computer analysis was confusing for me.
May 26, 2017
0
#6
IMBacon wrote:
Just because an engine says you "only" made 3 inaccuracies, doesnt mean thats all that happened. Engines dont have an understanding of many things that go on in a game, like tempo, pawn structures, strategy, space. That is why positional understanding is so important and will come with time, experience, and practice.
10.Nh4 loses a pawn. Now youre down a pawn, and give black a central pawn/space advantage.
11.Nf3 has moved the same piece 3 times in 11 moves. Thats 2 wasted tempo.
13.Re1 gives black the bishop pair, and gives you doubled pawns.
20.b3 leaves you with a backward pawn (target)
21.Rab1 ties down a major piece to defending a pawn.
25.Ng5 trades off the active knight for the less active bishop.
26.Qc2 now has tied your queen down to defending a pawn.
28.Nd5 trades off the better minor pieces, and destroys your pawn structure. You have pawns on b3-c4-d3-h3 all controlling light squares, and your opponent has a light square bishop.
31.Qa2-32.Qc2 wastes 2 tempo. At this point you were lost.
First of all, Thank you for your time and your personalized effort in analyzing the game. Very much appreciated.
Secondly, I knew at move 27, 28 that "something" went wrong. To know the answer, I went to computer analysis but it is clear that your analysis gives a better understanding than that of computer.
Thank you 
May 26, 2017
0
#7
MickinMD wrote:
If you use MS WIndows, I suggest you download Lucas Chess (free, http://www-lucaschess.rhcloud.com/index.html) to get a better idea of how you played than by the Chess.com analysis.
Here is what Stockfish 8 (set to a 12 move depth so I could generate it fast) thought of your overall performance. %ages at the bottom in the 70's indicate the minimum for a fairly well played game:
Today's engines don't tell you: "You should have planned a pawn attack up the middle," etc. but if an engine is telling you the same best move was different than what you played 2 or more times in a row , you can infer that you might have missed the best plan. For example, here's part of your game. Note that Stockfish says 9 d4 was a little better than your move and 10 d4 was a lot better than your move. You should look back at the game and see if an attack that used d4 as either part of the attack or something that aided an attack would have been better for you:
Finally, here's a move-by-move rating list where "!" isn't necessarily a great move, it just agrees with Stockfish's best move, "?" and "??" are not necessarily bad and awful, they are just a lot of pawn equivalents lower in evaluation than the best move. Additionally, note that Stockfish may see a 12-move mate that is not easily accomplished by a human without a mistake and where another move clearly wins for you in the long run - Stockfish may consider that an inaccuracy or a blunder even though it was the best move for you. In any case, the move list, as well as the table above, gives you a general idea of how consistently you are making good moves:
Thank you. It was what I was looking for. I know that human analysis and effort is better than any computer generated analysis but how can I analyze when I don't know the theme while playing. Using some assistance makes sense.
May 26, 2017
0
#8
BobbyTalparov wrote:
That said, you made several key errors in this game.
I know and that's why I was surprised that why these weren't recognized. And I was confused about whether it is useful to get help from computer. Thank you for your effort and analysis.
May 26, 2017
0
#9
AbuBakerJatoi wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Just because an engine says you "only" made 3 inaccuracies, doesnt mean thats all that happened. Engines dont have an understanding of many things that go on in a game, like tempo, pawn structures, strategy, space. That is why positional understanding is so important and will come with time, experience, and practice.
10.Nh4 loses a pawn. Now youre down a pawn, and give black a central pawn/space advantage.
11.Nf3 has moved the same piece 3 times in 11 moves. Thats 2 wasted tempo.
13.Re1 gives black the bishop pair, and gives you doubled pawns.
20.b3 leaves you with a backward pawn (target)
21.Rab1 ties down a major piece to defending a pawn.
25.Ng5 trades off the active knight for the less active bishop.
26.Qc2 now has tied your queen down to defending a pawn.
28.Nd5 trades off the better minor pieces, and destroys your pawn structure. You have pawns on b3-c4-d3-h3 all controlling light squares, and your opponent has a light square bishop.
31.Qa2-32.Qc2 wastes 2 tempo. At this point you were lost.
First of all, Thank you for your time and your personalized effort in analyzing the game. Very much appreciated.
Secondly, I knew at move 27, 28 that "something" went wrong. To know the answer, I went to computer analysis but it is clear that your analysis gives a better understanding than that of computer.
Thank you
Youre very welcome, and glad to help!
Good Luck.
MickinMD wrote:
If you use MS WIndows, I suggest you download Lucas Chess (free, http://www-lucaschess.rhcloud.com/index.html) to get a better idea of how you played than by the Chess.com analysis.
Here is what Stockfish 8 (set to a 12 move depth so I could generate it fast) thought of your overall performance. %ages at the bottom in the 70's indicate the minimum for a fairly well played game:
Today's engines don't tell you: "You should have planned a pawn attack up the middle," etc. but if an engine is telling you the same best move was different than what you played 2 or more times in a row , you can infer that you might have missed the best plan. For example, here's part of your game. Note that Stockfish says 9 d4 was a little better than your move and 10 d4 was a lot better than your move. You should look back at the game and see if an attack that used d4 as either part of the attack or something that aided an attack would have been better for you:
Finally, here's a move-by-move rating list where "!" isn't necessarily a great move, it just agrees with Stockfish's best move, "?" and "??" are not necessarily bad and awful, they are just a lot of pawn equivalents lower in evaluation than the best move. Additionally, note that Stockfish may see a 12-move mate that is not easily accomplished by a human without a mistake and where another move clearly wins for you in the long run - Stockfish may consider that an inaccuracy or a blunder even though it was the best move for you. In any case, the move list, as well as the table above, gives you a general idea of how consistently you are making good moves:
Very nice review!
Yesterday, I lost a game. At some point I thought I would be able to draw it but I "managed" to lose the game. Here's the game.
So, after the game I tried to use the Computer Analysis to see my mistakes. But surprisingly the computer analysis says I made 3 inaccuracies and no blunder.
So my question here is that how can I use this analysis to see what I did wrong. Can anyone guide me here?