New to Chess.com "Chess sense"

First post.  

I'm dipping my toes back into the chess waters.  It's been fun and educational in a 'get your a** handed to you by a seven year old' sort of way.   I may have to take up "Chess Boxing" to get ahead of the kids.

I'm equating chess with music, in that, at some point, you have to have an aptitude for the activity.  Sixty games in (mostly ten minute matches) I'm figuring that I don't have enough of a sample to know if I have any aptitude.

I've been using the analysis engine to review games.  I'm reviewing the really basic stuff (Shout out to Dan Rensch).

My question is this: 

How good is the ratio of "Excellent Move" to "Mistake" as a self-assessment tool? 

 

At the moment, if I play an 'excellent move' it's almost purely by happenstance.    The same way with mistakes.   And most other moves.   (I figure blunders are their own thing.)  What I'm wondering is whether, as I learn this stuff,  the 'ratio of excellent moves to good moves to mistakes" indicates whether I have any 'chess sense'?  

To further the analogy of chess to music, if a person can't match a pitch then singing lessons aren't going to help.    

So, my second question is this:  What's the sample size of games played needed before an assessment of a player's 'chess sense' can be reached?

note:  I'm not looking for a dissection of my games, yet.  I'm happy to be playing and enjoying myself.  Glad to give ratings points to all the other recreational players.   

The best way to gauge your own chess ability and improve is to play longer time controls, and lots of them. Blitz is enjoyable and can be used to try out new ideas, but you won't learn much in the long term

many experienced players will tell us not to get fixed on the engine analysis to go over our games; go over it on our own using as much or limited "chess sense" as we may have and find the point where things "went downhill"

i actually did this yesterday with most of my games i have played here on chess.com (started in feb/march) and in most of my lost games i could trace it back to a poor move in the opening- especially within the first 5 moves

and i noticed with my more recent games that my opening has gotten a little more solid; or, i understand a little better the reasons behind the moves

i only use the engine when i find the "critical point" and can see the evaluation make a significant leap one way or the other- then i will try to figure out other moves that would have been better

i have taken some lessons and my instructor says that playing in rapid 15/10 is best in my situation and to get through the opening in at least an equal position is the main goal of these games -the real improvement, however, will be in otb with much longer time controls

so, i think 60 games is a decent enough sample to learn and make some helpful observations about your games; i also seem to recall a certain grandmaster saying that to get better at chess one needs to lose 1000 games or something like this

 

You've got a cool nick name!