57 ( +1 | -1 ) Here is a tip to allTake it for what it is worth.......
There is a reason that there are book moves. Typically they are the best moves. It truly is that simple. A key point in every game is when the game is 'taken out of the book'. I use ChessBase as my 'book'. When a move goes from say 10,000 games to zero games, I can almost guarentee that is my chance to win. THAT MOVE. It is going to be a blunder 99% of the time. Same thing when there are a bunch of variations in your book, and all of a sudden, zero, take your time to figure out why, and you have found the win.
175 ( +1 | -1 ) I do think this is one reason the book review section of this site is so low on the comments about various chess books... Most people here just log on to thier chess programs and let the computer do the thinking for them, instead of in depth study from the many available chess books offered to them... I certainly agree about the "out of book theory" (being the weak move most of the time), but to simply memorize a number of moves, not transending the utmost limit imposed by the governing rules of play, the question will still arise... What is the opening and why exactly do I move there?...
Now the answer to this question is more easily imagined than discribed...
But to best study your lost game and where the blunder lies, you will find it was in your own thinking process... If you make a complete blunder or even a weak move (no matter how slight), understand where your mind was at and where it drifted off to towards the wrong direction... After you figure this out and correct it, only then can you start down the road to mastery and better games played...
Chess programs can measure the strengths and waeknesses of varios moves... But they will never explain where you went wrong in your thinking process... It's in the deeper understanding from the masters of the past, in the various books on chess, where you will find the gold nuggets of wisdom on the game... Computers and thier programs are good tools to practice on, but will never replace the knowledge of the masters from the past... Computers are an easy way for quick info, but lack the creativity and art of the game that can only come from the human mind... The greatest creation of all time...
33 ( +1 | -1 ) Seen before on the forumsThat the best way is to do a self analysis of the lost games. Then run it through fritz(or other analysis program). Study the differences in the two and look at why the computer suggested something different.
I think this is the better fix as you are involving your mind to figure out the problems, rather than just letting the computer do it and saying, "oh ok".
59 ( +1 | -1 ) It is quite optimisticTo believe running the game trough Fritz will magically transfer chess information to your head. It is not so far from putting books under your pillow before you go to sleep :-) If Fritz finds mate in 6 in your game, does it mean _you_ will find mate in 6 next time you play? Can Fritz teach you how to calculate millions of moves per minute? Or teach you planning, chess understanding etc?
I agree programs can be good for finding gross tactical mistakes though, but only after you have analyzed the game yourself.
25 ( +1 | -1 ) Peppe le pew...Computer chess programs are good tools for excersise and the basics... But the real knowledge of the in depth know how exists only in chess books from past masters of the game... Your statement shead light on the truth of the matter...
33 ( +1 | -1 ) Publish your analysisI think the best way is to analyse your game...think really hard what you could have done differently then publish your analysis on a forum like this asking for criticism of your ideas. Then, some players might be able to point out some interesting ideas for you.
293 ( +1 | -1 ) For the majority of amateurs, I would recommend not using Fritz or any other computer program at all. Not to analyze your lost games, check the analysis in a book, train, or anything else. Stronger players can use Fritz to check their analysis, but usually know when to reject computer analysis, but weaker players often accept computer evaluations as gospel without even analyzing the position. If you absolutely can't live without Fritz, then you could buy it, but I don't recommend using it extensively. I WOULD recommend submitting your losses to a coach to see what advice he gives you.
I disagree about book moves. There is a reason book moves are book, and most amateurs are not good enough to come up with really strong novelties. However, quite often you will find that they do not play the most common GM continuations, but some offbeat line, or make slight innacuracies along the way. 99.9% of the time you will never see a blunder on the first move out of book (unless you are playing a very, very weak player). But knowing the book isn't so important as understanding the position--what good is knowing what move your opponent blundered if you can't take advantage of his blunders? Opening books generally don't analyze blunders, unless they're blunders a strong player could make.
Only 44 games in the database with 6... Qb6. Interesting, not really bad, but not as strong as 6... Bg4 or 6... g6.
Now there are only 14 games in my database with this move, but I consider it to be at least as strong as 7. Qb3. I don't think the Queen exchange is necessary, as White can always play Qa4+ on Nb4, and I want to keep Queens on the board for now.
7... Bg4 8. Nd2 e6
Only one game in my database now. 8... Rc8 would have probably been better, but black can play ...Rc8 anytime on or before his 10th move.
The first move completely out of book (N-novelty). I think it's safe to say that 9. Ngf3 isn't a blunder.
9... Be7 10. 0-0 0-0?!
More accurate is something like 10... Rc8 11. Rae1 0-0 12. Qb1 Bh5 13. Ne5+= (Venalainen-Ahmad, 1974).
White wins at least a pawn (I would go on to win the game).
This is more typical of a game you will see against amateurs. Black doesn't even blunder at all, but he makes a series of innacuracies--a few moves after going out of book--that allows White to achieve an advantage and increase that advantage throughout the game.
But to answer the original question: you should analyze your losses in the same way you analyze your wins, that is, figuring out what the best moves were and why you made the moves that you did. Again, a chess coach will probably be able to assist you with this. But mainly you should try to identify the critical positions of a game and figure out why you made the mistakes that you did (what was your mental state, etc.). Then you should never repeat the same mistake again.
140 ( +1 | -1 ) atrifixI disagree totally. I am a firm believer in using chessbases and tools such as Fritz and CHessmanster to assist you in your development. Books by past masters are OK as well, but WAY too complex for beginners. For example from your post:
Do you think this means anything to a 1100 player?
Now, if they run the position through Fritz, Chessmaster, and use ChessBase to see what the actual Master level players are playing, and why, do you not think it will help clarify why Bh5 ws not the best choice? (this is just an example, please no deep analysis on the above game)
I also am not a fan of chess tudors. I am talking about the GM level. I have had a few, including Igor Ivanov, and find most cannot communicate to an 1100 player. They can tell you what the best moves are, but not the thinking process. It is 'automatic' to them. What I have done in the past is play a higher rated friend, a chess mentor type of setup, and had him explain each move he made, and I had to explain each move I made. This did help. Friends were about 1600-1700 rated when I was around 1200. It did help.
Chessbase it a great tool for learning if used correctly. It also is legal to use during your games at GK. For those who do not know, Chessbase is LEGAL to use on GK, Fritz, Chessmaster, Friends... ARE NOT LEGAL AT GK until after the game is over.
208 ( +1 | -1 ) combination of approaches.Useful advice atrifix, but I'll still use Fritz to analyse my games. This is an OTB game i played recently and won against a significantly stronger opponent, but there were still several good learning points for me, because I made a few blunders and missed a few opportunities. I went over the game with my opponent afterwards, and below is the Fritz analysis (120s - 0.25pawn).
I thought my 7th move was weak and my 8th move a blunder, but despite dropping a pawn felt I had compensation. Interestingly Fritz didn't see this move as a blunder either (though not the strongest move). Back to the database here...
I was really pleased with my 15th move 15...Nc5. My opponent also thought it was an excellent move. Fritz didn't seen overly impressed. I don't know who is right...
But I didn't even consider 20 Nxe4, a fairly superficial tactic making use of my opponents undeveloped kingside. I also missed this going over the game afterwards. However the theme will stay with me and I expect to see a similar theme again - without my computer analysis I'd have missed this valuable point.
Finally we both missed 27..c3. Fortunately I only missed it once, to my opponents twice. Of course Fritz rightly gave our moves as blunders, though still awarded c3 with an "!"
So to summarise I think a combined approach is best, and with little time I don't see a problem with using Fritz to pick out tactical oversights... just don't trust it too much I suppose.
opponent (ELO c.2000) v Me [E32] 10.03.2004 [Fritz 7 (120s)]
Do you think this means anything to a 1100 player? "
The analysis wasn't really intended for an 1100 player, but I think I could sufficiently explain to an 1100 player that after 11... Bh5 12. Bg5 white will win at least a pawn due to the double threat of Bxh7+ and Nd7 (since Black cannot meet both threats), while after 11... Bf5, if White goes after the pawn on f5, Black can counter by winnning the pawn on b2 and maintain material equality. The difference between += and = is not so great to an 1100, but material count is a relatively easy subject.
"Now, if they run the position through Fritz, Chessmaster, and use ChessBase to see what the actual Master level players are playing, and why, do you not think it will help clarify why Bh5 ws not the best choice?"
It may or may not help in this case, but my point is that I don't think that most beginners know how to use Fritz to best assist their development. Fritz can't explain where you went wrong in your thinking process or how to plan, etc.
"I also am not a fan of chess tudors. I am talking about the GM level. I have had a few, including Igor Ivanov, and find most cannot communicate to an 1100 player."
Sorry for your experience. For an 1100 player, a GM tutor is really completely unnecessary, as a master or even an expert or A player will be able to help you at around the same level (maybe even better) than a GM for a much lower price. GM tutors only really become necessary when you reach a level such that you can appreciate their feedback (like master or IM). But mostly, if you really want to improve, you have to put in sufficient work by yourself. No GMs, Fritzes, or miracle supplements will make you a master.
"Useful advice atrifix, but I'll still use Fritz to analyse my games."
OK. All this is IMHO, you can take it or leave it as you see fit.
"I thought my 7th move was weak and my 8th move a blunder, but despite dropping a pawn felt I had compensation. Interestingly Fritz didn't see this move as a blunder either (though not the strongest move). Back to the database here... "
This is essentially what I mean. I would be inclined to agree with your analysis than Fritz's. If you have compensation, I don't see it.
"I was really pleased with my 15th move 15...Nc5. My opponent also thought it was an excellent move. Fritz didn't seen overly impressed. I don't know who is right... "
I like 15... Nc5. Fritz will never be overly impressed unless a move radically changes its evaluation (and it won't always be right in those cases, either). It should be pointed out that 16. dxc5? is a mistake (even though Fritz doesn't put any annotation after it) since it loses both a pawn and the bishop pair.
"But I didn't even consider 20 Nxe4, a fairly superficial tactic making use of my opponents undeveloped kingside. I also missed this going over the game afterwards. However the theme will stay with me and I expect to see a similar theme again - without my computer analysis I'd have missed this valuable point. "
More power to you. This is essentially what computer analysis is intended for, but I think this would be more or less wasted on most 1100 players. I don't think they would remember the theme or recognize the relevant elements of the combination, but more or less gloss over meaningless things like [12. Bg3 Bb7+/-], [20... Nxe4!? 21. Ne2 Nd6-/+].
12 ( +1 | -1 ) coyotefanWhat did you think of Igor Ivanov (or any other GM)? I have heard in the past that Ivanov is very good.
53 ( +1 | -1 ) The point isIt is not enough to SEE the best move, one has to UNDERSTAND it :-)
For example, if we look at the game Atrifix posted, can Fritz explain 6...Qb6?! blocks the b-pawn and therefore makes it difficult for Black to play for minority attack (b5-b4) - a typical plan in this type of positions? Can it explain the purpose of minority attack? Can it point out using pawn minority to attack pawn majority is ok here because White has given b-pawn a target by playing c3?
And even if you check out the most popular theory moves, can it explain the purpose of each one of them?
15 ( +1 | -1 ) Igor IvanovLed a very interesting life, a great chessplayer, great person, but not able to communicate his talents. Too much 'this is obvious'. If it was obvious I would not ask why :)
15 ( +1 | -1 ) ThanksHi friends: Thanks by the differents opinions, they are very interesting for to improve our chess. Very soon, I send you a analisis game made for me.