Those sound very good.
If I wanted to be super-organized about analysis of games played, I would invest in a database program and enter each game into the database, so that I could study which openings I played well and which needed work.
You probably have your favorite openings you developed when you were weaker. Perhaps some of them are holding up well and others are consistently getting your thrashed.
The Games Explorer here used to do that but it hasn't worked in several yeras.
I have been wondering about whether or not I should have a database yet which I believe the answer is no. I think I might start that if I ever get to around 1800+ (maybe even wait until 2000+) elo. I have a minimal understanding of chess and I think perhaps the database would be a bit premature.
I'm still experimenting with openings but I like the scotch game and queens gambit as white. As black I'm not quite sure about 1.e4 eventhough I wood push the sicilian with ok results. I probably prefer the Petroff the most though. I'm just about to try out the Benoni against 1.d4 and see how I like that. I've been trying the dutch with horrible results. Granted I haven't really studied any openings that much. My favorite against 1.d4 is probably just the QGD lines as black.
Usually when I play a game at my level and analyse it, the only thing I remember days down the road is a tactic that happened, the opening used and maybe a mistake I made in the game. I'm just wondering what I should be striving towards the takeaway being from any game that I play. It seems that I'm not getting enough lasting compensation for the hours of analysis that I do. Perhaps this is psychological but there has to be a organized approach that is more rewarding and long lasting. At the moment I don't try to remember the whole game or anything like that, I just try to remember ideas.
A few questions that I think might help:
1. What opening was used? Did you make it through the opening without any major weaknesses?
2. What exchanges happened? Did you exchange correctly? Was the exchange in good timing?
3. What tactics were available? What tactics did you miss?
4. What was the condition of the pawn structures? Did it alter to your advantage or disadvantage throughout the game?
5. What was your plan? Did it work or leave you in a disadvantage? Did you execute it too fast or too slow or at the correct time?
6. What was the endgame situation? Where you confused at what to do?
I think I just need a more structured method. Instead of treating every game differently, perhaps they should be treated the same.
Anyway, what questions would you add to this? What is your analysis process that gives you the best takeaway?