I currently analyze each of my finished games by pasting the PGN into Fritz, selecting Full Analysis, and then playing back through every move to see what The Silicon Monster recommends in place of the moves I actually played. This has not been advancing my level of play, so I’m looking for a better method.
I almost titled this thread "How do you analyze your games?" but I decided against it because I'm sure that advanced players analyze their games much differently than someone at my level should be doing. So my question is this: How can a mid-1400 player with a copy of Fritz and a couple of basic chess books squeeze more useful information out of his finished games?
Originally posted by Rank Materialistthis is an excellent question, please someone answer as i have been wondering the same thing myself. i do not own a copy of fritz but have many books, like the originator of the post i would appreciate some help in this regard, as I find it difficult to see, why, 'white is slightly better', ' why, 'black has the initiative', etc 😀
I currently analyze each of my finished games by pasting the PGN into Fritz, selecting Full Analysis, and then playing back through every move to see what The Silicon Monster recommends in place of the moves I actually played. This has not been advancing my level of play, so I’m looking for a better method.
I almost titled this thread "How do yo ...[text shortened]... and a couple of basic chess books squeeze more useful information out of his finished games?
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by Rank MaterialistDont use fritz to analyze your games before you do! You will learn very little from fritz's "ideas". What id do is wait a few days after you've played then analyze your game without the help of fritz, its helpful if you have a friend to do it with since they will challenge your ideas and thoughts. Once you've analyzed your game with your own ideas then use fritz manually to check your lines.
I currently analyze each of my finished games by pasting the PGN into Fritz, selecting Full Analysis, and then playing back through every move to see what The Silicon Monster recommends in place of the moves I actually played. This has not been advancing my level of play, so I’m looking for a better method.
I almost titled this thread "How do yo and a couple of basic chess books squeeze more useful information out of his finished games?
instead of using full analysis, use infinite analysis, spending some time on every move (and necessary variations). it will be a lot more helpful.
other than that, I mean about understanding why "white is slightly better" in annotated games (from books for example), there's not really too much you can do. you just learn it by osmosis, and of course, deep analysis. try to analyze the annotated position as deeply as you can by yourself. only then those comments might mean something. and if they still don't even if you do analyze, just be patient (which means keep analyzing annotated games or positions) and the patterns will sink in.
Originally posted by Rank MaterialistI agree with Bedlam - don't use an engine to analyse your games. It doesn't apply the skills a great chess player uses. It calculates, that is all. So unless you are a mathematical genius, it wont add much value as you wont know 'why' it does what it does.
I currently analyze each of my finished games by pasting the PGN into Fritz, selecting Full Analysis, and then playing back through every move to see what The Silicon Monster recommends in place of the moves I actually played. This has not been advancing my level of play, so I’m looking for a better method.
I almost titled this thread "How do yo ...[text shortened]... and a couple of basic chess books squeeze more useful information out of his finished games?
I am hardly Kasparov, but if it helps to get a different view, I only analyse games I make a real mess of, just to make sure I dont repeat. I spend my time not on the games I have played, but on learning chess tactics, strategy, endgames, openings and solving problems to improve for future games. This develops flexible understanding, and increases appreciation of the position infront of you in any given game. It is also a damn sight more fun in my view! I just do it steadily, recreationally, so that I am always improving - slightly. I haven't hit my ceiling yet.
No doubt if you want to get 2000+ you need to study your games in depth, but I'm guessing you just want to start progressing again.
I hear what you're saying, Bedlam, about using Fritz later instead of sooner, but I guess I just don't know how to analyze a game without software. All I can think to do is play back through the moves and go, "Hmmmm...guess I shouldn't have put my Queen there."
Even though I can usually figure out where things started going wrong in a game, I don't know what else to do -- in terms of "analysis" -- except to speculate about what might have happened if I had played X instead of Z. I'm hoping to find some kind of method that's a little more...uh, well...methodical.
And thanks, diskamyl; I'll give Fritz's infinite analysis a try. Also, am I understanding you correctly that you think it's better to analyze someone else's annotated games than one's own games.
You have good advice so far and I'll just throw in this link: http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Novice%20Nook In it you'll find lots of good articles. I'd reccomend:
The Fundamental Theorem of Safety and Activity
Chess Principles and Common Sense
Activity is the Real Goal
The Principle of Tactical Dominance
Reviewing Chess Games
Improving Analysis Skills
Learning Opening Lines & Ideas
Evaluation Criteria
Break Moves: Opening Lines to Increase Mobility
Analysis and Evaluation
Originally posted by Rank MaterialistTwo things are key:
I currently analyze each of my finished games by pasting the PGN into Fritz, selecting Full Analysis, and then playing back through every move to see what The Silicon Monster recommends in place of the moves I actually played. This has not been advancing my level of play, so I’m looking for a better method.
I almost titled this thread "How do yo ...[text shortened]... and a couple of basic chess books squeeze more useful information out of his finished games?
Fist, apply Karpov's rule of analysis. Ask yourself 7 questions.
1. Material advantage?
2. King safety?
3. Immediate threats?
4. Open lines?
5. Central control?
6. Piece placement?
7. Pawn structure?
Second, study the endgame first. Don't wast time memorizing opening lines. About half of your study should be the endgame. Less than 10% openings. This is the biggest mistake made. You don't play endings, not because you don't get there, but because you don't know how to get there. The study of chess is a retrograde analysis. Study it from the end first, and then ideas in the middlegame and even the opening start to make sense.
Of course, dropping pieces is just a matter of experience. Any tactical study can't do anything but help. Strategical ideas are much more difficult to convert from study to actual play. I keep using this example, but I'll use it again. Anyone can learn to solve the Lucena position in short order, but learning to create it in your own games is not that easy. It's like anything else; first you copy the work of others, then you learn to create ideas of your own.
Join our club: Personal Chess Training. We have lots of students and teachers volunteering their time to help others. It is much easier to study when you are paired with a teacher, and you are less likely to drop out. That's what makes chess so hard to study. You study for a while, then become either bored, or come to a point where you don't understand the material or which way to go. This cycle continues over and over for decades. If you get paired with a teacher then you have someone behind you that is willing to work with you and push you to get better.
Squelchbelch and Bedlam, thank you very much for your generous offers to analyze some of my games. I’ll certainly take you up on it from time to time, but what I really want is a method that I can use when I’m on my own.
Since you asked, though, here are two games that I think reveal my most common shortcoming: I often sacrifice too much material during my attacks in the name of maintaining the initiative. Then the attack peters out and I find myself unarmed.
Game 4887701
Game 4966181
In short, I have no idea how to determine in advance whether a sac is likely to pay off or not. I saw THIS thread a little while ago and almost fainted: Thread 76446
That guy threw a Rook, a Queen, and Knight into the fire and won a few moves later. How he do dat? How he SEE dat? I often lose after a simple Bishop sac.
Another thing that drives me crazy is trying to determine when to swap Bishop for Knight in pin situations like the Ruy Lopez. Say I’m the one doing the pinning and my opponent pushes his a- or h-pawn out to put the question to my Bishop. Sometimes Fritz tells me I should have swapped; sometimes Fritz tells me I should have backed away. But Fritz never tells me why. What do I pay him for?
Originally posted by petrovitchAwesome. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for, petrovitch. Reminds me of Jeremy Silman's list of imbalances, which I try to keep in mind while I play but should probably also try to use in post-mortem analysis.
Two things are key:
Fist, apply Karpov's rule of analysis. Ask yourself 7 questions.
1. Material advantage?
2. King safety?
3. Immediate threats?
4. Open lines?
5. Central control?
6. Piece placement?
7. Pawn structure?
Second, study the endgame first. Don't wast time memorizing opening lines. About half of your study should ...[text shortened]... u have someone behind you that is willing to work with you and push you to get better.
I actually discovered your training site a few weeks ago and found it pretty intimidating. I appreciate your invitation and will give it serious consideration. Perhaps no method of analysis is as good as reviewing one's games with other players.
Originally posted by Rank MaterialistYou'll find Heisman's "generic thought process" article essential reading too, I should think:
Awesome. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for, petrovitch. Reminds me of Jeremy Silman's list of imbalances, which I try to keep in mind while I play but should probably also try to use in post-mortem analysis.
I actually discovered your training site a few weeks ago and found it pretty intimidating. I appreciate your invitation a ...[text shortened]... ation. Perhaps no method of analysis is as good as reviewing one's games with other players.
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman14.pdf
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by Rank MaterialistThats why they are called sacrifices and not tactics
In short, I have no idea how to determine in advance whether a sac is likely to pay off or not. I saw THIS thread a little while ago and almost fainted: Thread 76446
In this game annotated by IM Zoran Petronijevic I played Bxh7 without seeing most of the moves that followed, I certainly didnt see Rf8+ when I played it. Sometimes you cant work everything out but you just have to trust your judgement and play the moves that feel right. Its easier in OTB when practical winning chances are more importaint than total soundness.
[Event "Rated game, 90m + 0s"]
[Site "Tournaments"]
[Date "2006.09.08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Caffeinated"]
[Black "Paulo"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B23"]
[WhiteElo "1830"]
[BlackElo "1901"]
[Annotator "Petronijevic,Zoran"]
[PlyCount "59"]
[EventDate "2006.09.17"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]
[TimeControl "5400"]
1. e4 {2} c5 {20} 2. Nc3 {15} a6 {22} ({It is hard to say what's the best move
for Black here but we can say that it's for sure that the game move was not
best. A standard} 2... Nc6 {
is normally played though other moves are also possible.}) 3. f4 {6} ({
White has a big choice here:} 3. g3) (3. a4) (3. Nge2) (3. Nf3 {
and the game move is good.}) 3... d6 {30} ({
Since Black has played a6, here, interesting is} 3... b5) 4. Nf3 {3} Nc6 {15}
5. a4 {26} ({Besides the game move also played is} 5. g3) ({also interesting is
} 5. d4 cxd4 6. Nxd4 {The game move is natural - prevents (for now) b5.}) 5...
e6 {38} ({also possible is} 5... g6 {in spirit of The Closed Sicilian.}) 6. d4
{43} ({According to megabase normally played is} 6. Bc4 {
In both cases equal play arises.}) 6... Be7 {117} ({
I didn't find this move in Megabase 2008. The reason is that better was} 6...
cxd4 7. Nxd4) 7. dxc5 {144} dxc5 {12} 8. Be3 {39} ({
White could have entered in a little better ending:} 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 9. Be3 {
but it is known that you like sharp play :-).}) 8... Qc7 {141} ({In chess, INIT
IATIVE is very important - it is likely that it is decisive. That's why
instead of natural move that is played in the game more active was} 8... Qb6 {
With this move Black limits White's possibilities - he must think about the b2
pawn now.}) 9. Bd3 {172} Nf6 {49} 10. O-O {8} ({Here, a little more precise was
} 10. Qe2 {with equal play.}) 10... O-O {26} ({
Though the game move is good, Black also could have played} 10... Ng4) 11. h3 {
Preventing Ng4. 125} Rd8 {26} ({Both sides have good development. Black should
have tried to get rid of potentially strong white piece - Bd3:} 11... Nb4) 12.
e5 {55} Ne8 $6 {61} ({Now, Black has certain problems. Better was} 12... Nd5
13. Nxd5 exd5 14. c3) 13. Ng5 $3 {288} ({White immediately launches the
attack! Brave decision. Many players would first prepare for the attack here
(and they would be right), say by} 13. Qe2 Nd4 14. Bxd4 cxd4 15. Ne4 {
with excellent chances for the attack for White. White plays risky, but, in my
opinion, it's a correct way of playing. No win without taking a risk. It is
true that the variation that I mention now is better than the game move but
White takes a risk.}) 13... Bxg5 $2 {119} ({
This move is a mistake, because it opens up the f-file. Better was} 13... g6 {
with approximately equal play.}) 14. fxg5 {
Now, Black is in a trouble. He has weak squares - h7 and f7. 4} c4 {8} ({
Black is in a trouble. Taking on e5 leads to bad position:} 14... Nxe5 15. Bf4
g6 (15... c4 16. Bxh7+ Kxh7 17. Qh5+ Kg8 18. Bxe5 Qxe5 19. Qxf7+ Kh7 20. Rf4
$18) 16. Qe2 c4 17. Bxe5 Qc5+ 18. Rf2 cxd3 19. cxd3 $18) 15. Bxh7+ $1 {
Looks like a classic sacrifice but one needs to be a real master to win. 83}
Kxh7 {7} 16. Qh5+ {22} Kg8 {6} 17. g6 $2 {3} ({
White could have finished his development by} 17. Rxf7 $1 Qxe5 (17... Qxf7 18.
g6 Qf5 19. Qh7+ Kf8 20. Bc5+ Nd6 21. Rf1 $18) 18. Bf4 Qd4+ 19. Kh1 $18 {
After the game move the position was equal.}) 17... fxg6 {98} 18. Rf8+ $1 {
all other moves are inferior 38} Kxf8 {5} 19. Qh8+ {4} Ke7 {5} 20. Bg5+ $2 {12}
({White can try to equalize in two ways:} 20. Rf1 Nxe5 21. Qf8+ Kd7 22. Rd1+
Nd6 23. Qxg7+ Kc6 24. Qxe5 b6 25. Nd5 exd5 26. Qxd5+ Kd7 27. Qf7+ Kc6 $11) (20.
Bc5+ Kd7 21. Rd1+ Nd4 22. Rxd4+ Kc6 23. Rxc4 b5 24. Bd6+ bxc4 25. Bxc7 Kxc7 $11
{after the game move Black stands better.}) 20... Kd7 $2 {83} ({
In very complicated positions there are many mistakes. Black could have played
} 20... Kf7 21. Rf1+ (21. Bxd8 Qxd8 22. Rf1+ Nf6 $19) 21... Nf6 22. Rxf6+ gxf6
23. Qh7+ Ke8 24. Qxc7 Rd7 25. Qb6 fxg5 26. Ne4 Rd1+ 27. Kf2 Rd4 $17 {
Now White has a decisive attack.}) 21. Rd1+ $18 {20} Nd4 {14} 22. Rxd4+ {10}
Nd6 {131} (22... Kc6 23. Bxd8 $18) 23. Qxd8+ $6 {63} ({fastest wins} 23. Rxd6+
Qxd6 24. Qxd8+ Kc6 25. Qxd6🙄 23... Qxd8 {10} 24. Rxd6+ {3} Kc7 {6} 25. Bxd8+ {
41} Kb8 {7} 26. Bb6 {8} a5 {65} 27. Ne4 {63} (27. Nb5 $18) 27... Ra6 {8} 28.
Nc5 {8} Ra8 {3} 29. Nd7+ {18} Bxd7 {9} 30. Rxd7 {Paulo gibt auf (Lag: Av=0.21s,
max=0.6s) } 1-0
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
It doesnt always work out though, in this game I was in big trouble and saw Bxh7 was unclear (at least to me) so tried that, it didnt work out too well in the end.....but my opponent did get banned for using an engine a week later so not too bad considering the opponent I was playing 🙂 Still even though I lost Bxh7 gave good practical chances, it changed the nature of the game.
[Event "Rated game, 90m + 0s"]
[Site "Tournaments"]
[Date "2006.09.02"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Caffeinated"]
[Black "HenKathi"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B14"]
[WhiteElo "1834"]
[BlackElo "1976"]
[PlyCount "78"]
[EventDate "2006.09.17"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Bb4 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8.
Bd2 Nc6 9. Bd3 O-O 10. O-O Be7 11. Qe2 Bd7 12. Nxd5 exd5 13. a3 Bf6 14. Be3 Bg4
15. h3 Bh5 16. Rac1 Qd7 17. Rfd1 Rae8 18. Bb1 Bxd4 19. Bxh7+ Kxh7 20. Ng5+ Kg6
21. Qd3+ f5 22. g4 Bxe3 23. fxe3 Kxg5 24. gxh5 Kxh5 25. Rc5 Qc7 26. Kf2 Qh2+
27. Ke1 Qxh3 28. Kd2 Ne5 29. Qe2+ Ng4 30. Rc3 d4 31. Rd3 dxe3+ 32. Kc1 Rc8+ 33.
Kb1 f4 34. Rd5+ Kh6 35. Rg1 f3 36. Qd3 f2 37. Rd6+ Rf6 38. Rxf6+ gxf6 39. Rxg4
f1=Q+ 0-1