So long as you keep taking your losses as personal insults and not opportunities to learn to improve your craft, you will not get far.
Actually, i didnt get into analyzing my own games until i was around 1600-1800, so i dont even think its strictly necessary for quite some time. You can get by on chess osmosis and being exposed to a lot of games but its not as efficient.
Your name sounds like you would be from Brazil or Portugal!
So long as you keep taking your losses as personal insults and not opportunities to learn to improve your craft, you will not get far.
Actually, i didnt get into analyzing my own games until i was around 1600-1800, so i dont even think its strictly necessary for quite some time. You can get by on chess osmosis and being exposed to a lot of games but its not as efficient.
Your name sounds like you would be from Brazil or Portugal!
its a common Portuguese surname, but its not rare among hispanics.
Yeah, I know how that is.
For a long time I didn't want to look at my tournament games with an engine, because I felt like if I couldn't find the right move in 3, 4, 5 hour game, then it meant I was not good enough to find it, so having an engine tell me my mistakes is just insulting.
What you can do though is go over the game by yourself. Your goal is to mark every moment where the evaluation changes from equal to either white or black is ahead or white / black is winning.
So for example, maybe on move 25 of the game you knew your position was worse. Ok. Now take back one move at a time to try to find the moment it happened. Was your position worse on move 24? 23? On each position calculate some on your own, and then move the pieces to explore variations.
Write down anything interesting you discover. It could be a tactic or idea. It could be a thought process you wish you'd used during the game, or wish you hadn't used. It could be notes to yourself about correct or incorrect ideas during the game, and what you'll do differently next time.
This sort of thing is much more useful than having chess.com mark a few errors after a 30 second analysis.
This sounds like a very good idea. I heard already a GM saying something similar. Another GM, the Brazilian Rafael Leitão, suggested a combination of engine and human analysis. He moves the position in the program in such a way that he can only see the evaluation but not the analysis. So every time the evaluation changes abruptly it tries to find out what happened. I like this idea too.
ideally, you would go over your whole game with an engine, but if you are pressed for time, you could focus on key moments in the game. In places like lichess, you can get an evaluation chart of your game, where it visually shows where abrupt changes in the position eval occur. You can jump around to those parts to focus. This is good if you want to just retain a handful of learning opportunities per game you play but also save time.
Yeah, I know how that is.
For a long time I didn't want to look at my tournament games with an engine, because I felt like if I couldn't find the right move in 3, 4, 5 hour game, then it meant I was not good enough to find it, so having an engine tell me my mistakes is just insulting.
What you can do though is go over the game by yourself. Your goal is to mark every moment where the evaluation changes from equal to either white or black is ahead or white / black is winning.
So for example, maybe on move 25 of the game you knew your position was worse. Ok. Now take back one move at a time to try to find the moment it happened. Was your position worse on move 24? 23? On each position calculate some on your own, and then move the pieces to explore variations.
Write down anything interesting you discover. It could be a tactic or idea. It could be a thought process you wish you'd used during the game, or wish you hadn't used. It could be notes to yourself about correct or incorrect ideas during the game, and what you'll do differently next time.
This sort of thing is much more useful than having chess.com mark a few errors after a 30 second analysis.
This sounds like a very good idea. I heard already a GM saying something similar. Another GM, the Brazilian Rafael Leitão, suggested a combination of engine and human analysis. He moves the position in the program in such a way that he can only see the evaluation but not the analysis. So every time the evaluation changes abruptly it tries to find out what happened. I like this idea too.