well you got the right sequence, the more you practice the quicker it will become.
Furthermore it won't be the case that after each move you are calculating a whole new position, a lot of the checks captures and threats will be the same you just have to see if the new move creates threats you have to deal with or gives you some new oppurtunities
The nice thing about checks and captures is in a real game is they only change 1 move at a time. Just update your list after each move and you wont be expending much effort.
After a while it become 2nd nature so like paulgottlieb says it eventually happens without conscious effort.
It's also just part of trying to understand your opponent's last move. Look at all the new squares the piece attacks (you can trace the lines with your eyes for example, even if other pieces block them). If it uncovered a piece, look at those new squares too. Also notice the squares it no longer attacks (maybe they undefended something you can use to your advantage).
So a check or a capture would be when a piece can be captured or the king checked in a single move, right?
A threat ... would be where it takes more moves? Or when capture is threatened but the piece is protected so that the capture would become an exchange?
I'd think of threats as a basic and short tactical threat or mate threat... like pinning a piece then attacking it with a pawn (so they play a pin, and you see the threat of the pawn advance which would immediately win it).
Others would be forks, skewers, and removing the defender. Basic tactical themes like these.
That's just my guess, because of course you can't see all the threats. Maybe in the text he elaborates. (This is from Heisman's Improving Chess Thinker or an article of his maybe?)
I don't know the original source, but this phrase has been repeated in some of the threads I've been reading. OK ... look for forks, pins, overloading a particular piece, removing a defender, etc.
If I become more systematic, I really think I'll commit fewer stupid mistakes!
Before you even start to analyse, look for what the opponent's move changed on the board, this means files opened, new squares available/controlled, pieces "discovered" etc. I find that this works wonders in stopping blunders because there are rarely those "oops, I didn't see that possibility" moments (we've all had them.) And, of course, after the move look for checks captures and threats like others here have outlined.
These two things cut down my blunders greatly.
This sounds very systematic. What is the thought process or sequence involved? And how long should it take on a board that has had, say, 20 moves, so that it's far from the original setup.
(Even I know that in the opening move, there are not yet any checks to check.)