Its always good to do analysis with your opponent in the skittles room after the game where you can discuss your thoughts, why you played this move, what were your plans, etc etc. After that then analyzing with silicon is fine to check everything and what not.
Human or Computer Analysis
Sort:
Yes, that did help. I like the 3 points you came up with but I had a question about one, I thought computers were good at endgame? I might be missing your point of "endgame theory." Like I said before I generally use computer to check for "vast" improvements or "moves" that are decisive. But I do see your point of how computer have no real "long term" plan. That being said why is it still really hard/impossible for people to beat computers. (Also what engine would you suggest - I had Chessmaster 10th originally, but I recently got Fritz 12 and I can see the difference in interface).
Computers are actually very good at endgames due to endgame tablebases...
They are also very good at finding your tactical mistakes. but not necessarily all bad positional moves although someday they might be able to-who knows.
Btw computers do play theory if you have an opening book installed. But for the opening part you can just use a database annd check where a deviation occured...
Computer analysis is like crack for amateurs -- instant "answers" with no work. It's much better to slowly and carefully spend time with your game, squeezing out the errors. After you've written it all down, put the tourney games away and continue with your regular study or play. After a month or so, take the games back out and squeeze them again. If you can find 80-90% of the truth in the game, you've done great and aren't likely to repeat your mistakes in future game.
If you run to a computer before this, then you get to throw a few question marks around, and few exclaims around, and a week later you'll have forgotten any minor lesson you may have learned.
And really, it's likely you haven't gotten to the bottom of the game yet, and so I'd prefer to show it to a stronger player (if any are willing to take a bit of time with your game). They can give further insight and practical advice. A computer is more like a last resort.
I have been wondering what people prefer for analysis of their games (Im speaking mostly of OTB). Personally I prefer Human Analysis for games because it seems more practical for OTB board play where a few people are bouncing ideas and lines off each-other. On the other hand I feel computer analysis is good because it can point moves that are either hard to see or are really deep. Thoughts?