Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Is it usefull to analyse won games, if...

...you analyse the opponent's mistakes? I mean, it would prob be useless since you already figured out the opponent's mistakes in the game, which won you the game. But even then still, would it be usefull or worth the time to analyse with the board turned around?

...you analyse the opponent's mistakes? I mean, it would prob be useless since you already figured out the opponent's mistakes in the game, which won you the game. But even then still, would it be usefull or worth the time to analyse with the board turned around?

No, analyzing your won games is far less useful than analyzing your lost games.

No, analyzing your won games is far less useful than analyzing your lost games.

@GCVM said ^

...you analyse the opponent's mistakes? I mean, it would prob be useless since you already figured out the opponent's mistakes in the game, which won you the game. But even then still, would it be usefull or worth the time to analyse with the board turned around?

Thats the first time you asked a chess question! Anyway:

  1. Yes, you should analyze your opponents mistake too. That time you got lucky, but a better player would have tested your limits more. They would have made better moves and had tried to induce more mistakes from you.

  2. If you find good moves for your opponent ( WITHOUT the help of engine) , you get better at chess altogther. You get the habit of seeing the best response from him and calculating/evaluating correctly. It helps to avoid blunders.

@GCVM said [^](/forum/redirect/post/2I14jDeo) > ...you analyse the opponent's mistakes? I mean, it would prob be useless since you already figured out the opponent's mistakes in the game, which won you the game. But even then still, would it be usefull or worth the time to analyse with the board turned around? Thats the first time you asked a chess question! Anyway: 1. Yes, you should analyze your opponents mistake too. That time you got lucky, but a better player would have tested your limits more. They would have made better moves and had tried to induce more mistakes from you. 2. If you find good moves for your opponent ( WITHOUT the help of engine) , you get better at chess altogther. You get the habit of seeing the best response from him and calculating/evaluating correctly. It helps to avoid blunders.

for won games looking for you bad moves wont hurt. unlike tpr I will blunder even on my won games.

for won games looking for you bad moves wont hurt. unlike tpr I will blunder even on my won games.

"No, analyzing your won games is far less useful than analyzing your lost games."

Maybe, but not always.

"No, analyzing your won games is far less useful than analyzing your lost games." Maybe, but not always.

@petri999 said ^

for won games looking for you bad moves wont hurt. unlike tpr I will blunder even on my won games.

same , analyse won games shows you alternate ideas .

@petri999 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/WOYWxVrV) > for won games looking for you bad moves wont hurt. unlike tpr I will blunder even on my won games. same , analyse won games shows you alternate ideas .

@TheMagnusAura said ^

Thats the first time you asked a chess question! Anyway:

True lol

  1. Yes, you should analyze your opponents mistake too. That time you got lucky, but a better player would have tested your limits more. They would have made better moves and had tried to induce more mistakes from you.
  1. If you find good moves for your opponent ( WITHOUT the help of engine) , you get better at chess altogther. You get the habit of seeing the best response from him and calculating/evaluating correctly. It helps to avoid blunders.

Exactly! But the question, is it worth the time? Should you analyse all games, or only ''tricky'' ones? Maybe ones in which you're not sure the opponent played the best moves?

@TheMagnusAura said [^](/forum/redirect/post/mZSA9mic) > > Thats the first time you asked a chess question! Anyway: True lol > 1. Yes, you should analyze your opponents mistake too. That time you got lucky, but a better player would have tested your limits more. They would have made better moves and had tried to induce more mistakes from you. > 2. If you find good moves for your opponent ( WITHOUT the help of engine) , you get better at chess altogther. You get the habit of seeing the best response from him and calculating/evaluating correctly. It helps to avoid blunders. Exactly! But the question, is it worth the time? Should you analyse all games, or only ''tricky'' ones? Maybe ones in which you're not sure the opponent played the best moves?

actually i never analyse my games bcuz my tv doesnt support engines even cant tell mates tho :(

actually i never analyse my games bcuz my tv doesnt support engines even cant tell mates tho :(

@SANJAY-KURAMA2003 said ^

actually i never analyse my games bcuz my tv doesnt support engines even cant tell mates tho :(

Serious question, how do you then improve?

@SANJAY-KURAMA2003 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/c1zw4pjF) > actually i never analyse my games bcuz my tv doesnt support engines even cant tell mates tho :( Serious question, how do you then improve?

"Exactly! But the question, is it worth the time? Should you analyse all games, or only ''tricky'' ones? Maybe ones in which you're not sure the opponent played the best moves?"

Yes it is worth the time. But theres a catch to it: if you won because of a queen blunder on move 15, just move on. Theres nothing to analyse there. Just check if you played the opening correctly. I think any game which you found very difficult to win must be analysed upon 'why"

"Exactly! But the question, is it worth the time? Should you analyse all games, or only ''tricky'' ones? Maybe ones in which you're not sure the opponent played the best moves?" Yes it is worth the time. But theres a catch to it: if you won because of a queen blunder on move 15, just move on. Theres nothing to analyse there. Just check if you played the opening correctly. I think any game which you found very difficult to win must be analysed upon 'why"