In article ,
Mark A. Morenz wrote:
(Ed Gaillard) wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mark A. Morenz wrote:
Thanks very much to all who took the time to analyze!! I will endeavor
to put it all to good use.

As to this specific post...I've analyzed both wins and losses. To
claim one is more useful than the other is nonsense on the face of it.

Ah, no. If your objective is to become a better player, then you need
to find out where you are _weak_ (what kind of errors you make); and
for that purpose, analyzing your losses is more productive. There are
two reasons for this: one is that one tends to have played more weakly
in losses than in wins; the other is that in a loss, your opponent has
already identified some of your mistakes. It's fine to analyze both,
but if you have limited time, you want to be sure to analyze the
losses first.


It's an interesting point. As an experienced educator/trainer, I
question your assumptions (at least when it comes to intermediate
players). I think at expert+ levels opponents tend to exploit
weaknesses, sure; but at my level the reality is that, if we could
exploit our opponent's weaknesses, we wouldn't be playing at that
level.

Every error you make posints out a weakness in your play. When you
lose a game, your opponent obviously has exploited one or more of your
errors. (otherwise, how did you lose?) So, in your losses, the
opponent has already done some of the work of identifying your
weaknesses.

Also, games are rarely lost by a single mistake. If you look at a
large number of games, you will see that the losers have made more
mistakes than the winners; so losses are a richer field for finding
your errors than wins are. (Again, do analyse all your games if you
have time, though.)

It's fundamental that you are always analyzing your own moves and not
your opponents, therefore it doesn't matter.

This is incorrect for the same reason. It is fundamental that you
must analyze the moves of both sides. If you do not examine your
opponent's moves, how will you know where he could have played more
strongly, where he could have exposed your weakness?


Again, you are saying that you analyze your own moves to look for weak
moves and that a key way to identify those weak moves is by analyzing
how your opponent exploited them in your losses.

Not quite. You cannot identify your errors unless you see how they
could be exploited. If the opponent actually exploited an error, that
part of your work is done (for that error). If he did _not_ exploit
your error, how will you identify it? Only by analysing his play to
find the stronger moves he missed.

This is another reason to work backwards, by the way: if you notice
that he failed to take advantage of an opportunity, you now know that
you need to find a stronger move for your side before that point.

I maintain that that
approach is only effective when you are playing a certain level of
competition. The sad fact is that I don't generally play 1500+
competition enough to see many examples of that kind of exploitation.

You see at least one example every time you lose a game.

Most of my opponents are also bumbling along, making several *Errors*
each game. It's this comedy of errors that so frustrates experts when
they analyze that level of games, but it's the reality of it.

Right, so you have to identify their errors as well as your own;
otherwise, how do you know what was really going on?

[...]

however, as you can see, at this level of play both
sides usually relinquish the wining initiative a couple of times each
game.

Right--so you need to identify the places where your opponent let you
off easy!


What? They let me off easy more often in my losses than my wins? I
thought you said that it was the other way around?

Now you're just trolling.

I find that it works best to start with the end of the game, and work
backwards, trying to identify each point at which either player could
have improved. That way, I also avoid spending too much time on the
opening.


Now *that* resonates with me. I've spent way too much time looking at
Openings. I've found that, when I use computer analysis of my games, I
seldom really lose it until the midgame exchanges start. Out of my 16
tourney games, in only 1 or 2 was I worse off after the opening. Yet
I've lost 13 of them.

Don't rely too much on the computer. Try to find the mistakes on your
own first--you'll learn faster that way. Use the computer to check
your analysis once you think you're done.

I don't mean to be argumentative. I'm just exploring ideas. I
appreciate the feedback. Be well!

:-{)]

-ed g.

In article ,
(Mark A. Morenz) wrote:


Again, you are saying that you analyze your own moves to look for weak
moves and that a key way to identify those weak moves is by analyzing
how your opponent exploited them in your losses. I maintain that that
approach is only effective when you are playing a certain level of
competition. The sad fact is that I don't generally play 1500+
competition enough to see many examples of that kind of exploitation.
Most of my opponents are also bumbling along, making several *Errors*
each game. It's this comedy of errors that so frustrates experts when
they analyze that level of games, but it's the reality of it.

The point is that when you lose a game and you play over it, you have a
different experience of it -- because you saw how certain moves worked
or didn't work out. Maybe that pawn thrust created a weak square, but
you weren't thinking about the weak square until your opponent dropped a
knight on it.

Well, when you annotate the game, KNOWING that a knight is going to
land on that square, you're going to evaluate that pawn thrust a little
differently, aren't you?

While there are exceptions in both cases, in your wins you generally
did things right, so you don't have a lot of cause to go back and
re-evaluate your decisions. Even if they're wrong (say, your opponent
missed the opportunity to drop a knight on that weak square!) there's a
real tendency not to notice the flaw, because in the game your strategy
worked.

So you'll tend to not notice your own mistakes. You're more likely to
give exclamation marks to moves that really aren't very good.

On the other hand, in your losses, more often you'll find that your
plans didn't work out the way you anticipated. There's a gap between
what you thought would happen and what happened -- and that gap is the
place where you focus your analysis.

And if later you show your analysis to a stronger player, he can then
point out flaws in your analysis-- again, where what you thought would
happen (in your post-game analysis) is different from what he would have
played against you. Another gap, more room for analysis.

-Ron

I wonder what every one thought of my comments on the opening here. Person who
posted the game didn't mention that it was a quick game until later in the
thread.
asked
If anyone cared to, here is a recent game (I won with Black) for
analysis. I appreciate all comments.


I won't comment on the entire game but the opening is worth a look.

Neither player kept in mind the importance of the center, development,
equalizing, and retaining the inititive. Consequently, game was back and
forth
as to advantage.
1. e4 Nc6

Black entered Alekhine's Defense if White chose to go that route. White made
a
passive reply.
2. Nc3 which developed a piece and protected his pawn on e4. Usually White
would have played 2. e5 attacking Black's knight forcing it to move.

White's passive play gives Black a chance to equalize if not take the
inititive
as early as the second move.

2. Nc3 e5

Instead Black played 2. ... g6 intending to fianchetto his Bishop as early as
possible.
This intention to fianchetto was ill advised and pasive as there was no need
to
do so as normal development of the bishop after 2. ... e5 would have been
possible and much stronger and aggressive play. The bishop on g7 may control
the long diagonal but it does not attack White's center pawn on e4. Nor does
it
really prevent the advance of the e4 pawn to e5 as placeing a pawn on e5
would
have done.

Possibly Black was preparing to advance his queen pawn to d5 with support
from
the bishop, but Black reached d5 in two moves which also wasted a tempo.

By move six Black was out developed though he did castle early. Black's
salvation was that White persisted in playing on the Queen side especially on
the b file. Black was able to gain time by attacks on White's Queen's Bishop
with subsequent gains in position and tempo.

In his retreat, on move 13 White should have kept his bishop on the b8-h2
diagonal . He had time to make further room and gain space by moving h2-h3
and
begining active play on the king side instead of further retreats.

I hope that this helps. As White, I would have tested Black's knowledge of
Alekhine's Defense by staying in the book and striking at the knight on f6.

As Black, I would have played for the inititive after White's weak and
passive
second move.

1. e4 Nf6
2. Nc3 e5

Usually I wouldn't bother to repost an entire message, but I thought that the
opening situation was worth a second look.