My Own Analysis
I’ve been speaking a lot here lately about getting together with friends to analyze, and I do have to say that I think that has been helping me a lot lately.
I’ve shared some of that analysis, for instance, with this game:
If I’m being honest, the main reason I like to analyze with others rather than by myself more often than not is for the simple fact that two heads are better than one, and in our group’s case, three are better than two.
In my case, I’m specifically talking about idea generation. In sharp positions, there might only be one move, and either you find it, or you don’t. However, in many middlegame positions, there may be multiple ideas and approaches to try, and having a variety of thought processes contributes to the overall health of the analysis, in my opinion.
The downside to this approach, however, is that sometimes you’re just coasting as the others do the work. Seems like we’re always having to fight against our baser natures here, or at least I am.
However, I am a member of the ChessDojo, and one of the tasks they give is to analyze master games. In my cohort (1700-1800), they provide a study with 47 Petrosian games for members to analyze.
The task is designed to work like this (the following text is quoted directly from the Dojo website.
Goals
Learn at least three ideas from each game — this could include tactical/strategic patterns that you haven’t seen before, opening principles, endgame concepts, how to approach certain positions, etc.! Advanced players (above 1600) are encouraged to look for as many interesting ideas as possible.
Try to understand what would have happened in case of alternative moves/defenses. Look at the position with your own eyes and ask questions. Was there a hanging piece that wasn’t captured? Did someone neglect to make an obvious sacrifice? As soon as you notice an interesting/obvious move that wasn’t played, that’s exactly the right moment to pause and analyze (without the engine) what could have happened. Depending on your level, you can take 3-10 minutes to analyze an alternative.
At the end of each game, you should be able to describe the narrative of the game — who was better and why? Did the winning player convert their advantage with sacrifices/tactics, or slow positional technique? See if you can agree with your training partner/group about a general story of the game.
How To
Spend at least 30 minutes going through each game.
If you’re working alone, using a physical board is ideal, especially if you’re practicing for OTB tournaments. You are also far less likely to rush through the game and get more out of it. If working with a partner or group, a shared Chess.com Classroom/Lichess study is probably the most convenient, but you could also play through the game OTB while someone else handles the shared board.
Make sure to evaluate key positions with your own eyes. If an obvious move/plan wasn’t played, take a few minutes to understand why.
If a moment is particularly confusing – for instance Player A hung a piece and the opponent didn’t capture it, first (if studying OTB) make sure you have the right position, you may have missed/played a wrong move earlier. If you’re sure you have the right position and still can’t figure it out, you can either post a question in the Training Discord to see what others think, or you can consult with the engine to see if there’s something tactical that you’re missing.
Do not: run through the whole game with the engine on. You will be distracted by random engine evals and will not engage your own mind, which is what this is all about! The only time you should turn on the engine is after you’ve already spent some time trying to figure something out for yourself. If you want to check your analysis after you’ve spent 30+ minutes going through the game, that’s fine. (David still says never ;-) )
So far, I have analyzed three of these games. At a total of 4:38 spent, I’m running about 3x the “at least 30 minutes” advice above.
These I am doing alone, with no assistance from friends. This has forced me to learn to analyze more critically on my own, and one thing I have found in doing so is that all of the idea generation done in the group analysis now pays off in spades.
I see many approaches to certain positions. I see far more strategic ideas in analysis than I used to, since I now spend a lot of time being exposed to the thought processes of those who approach the game differently than I.
Just like in the group sessions, I do not use the engine AT ALL until the final check of the work.
Here are the three games I have analyzed so far. Would be curious as to any feedback folks may have.
I have to say that I genuinely feel like the last six months of training have exposed me to many new ideas. Feels like a breakthrough could be coming. I’ve almost forgotten what those feel like.
Til next time,
Chris Wainscott