Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

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

@tpr said ^

  • It is not fun, but it is helpful. Fischer described how after a loss he stayed up all night analyzing.

I guess Fischer could not stand losing, a lot of people can not stand losing but losing at sport or at a game never made me sad or mad or searching for revenge. But tbh when I send poems to poetry contests I am sad when they do not win, and I do analyze my poems, in depth, over and over again...

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/4gaVweAF) > * It is not fun, but it is helpful. Fischer described how after a loss he stayed up all night analyzing. I guess Fischer could not stand losing, a lot of people can not stand losing but losing at sport or at a game never made me sad or mad or searching for revenge. But tbh when I send poems to poetry contests I am sad when they do not win, and I do analyze my poems, in depth, over and over again...

"I guess Fischer could not stand losing"

  • Fischer hated losing, that made him so good. Alékhine, Kasparov, Carlsen the same.

'You may learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win.
You will have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player.' - Capablanca

Suppose a player plays 10 games with XYZ gambit, wins 9 and loses 1.
A) suppose the player analyzes his magnificent wins thoroughly, how he would have won if the opponent played such and such, if there was no faster checkmate... Said player does not analyze the one loss, as it was a dull game and he made a stupid blunder in time trouble. XYZ gambit is wonderful.
B) suppose the player analyzes his one loss, notices his compensation dwindles and he goes to a lost endgame even if there would have been neither time trouble, nor blunder. XYZ gambit only works against weaker players.

"I guess Fischer could not stand losing" * Fischer hated losing, that made him so good. Alékhine, Kasparov, Carlsen the same. 'You may learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win. You will have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player.' - Capablanca Suppose a player plays 10 games with XYZ gambit, wins 9 and loses 1. A) suppose the player analyzes his magnificent wins thoroughly, how he would have won if the opponent played such and such, if there was no faster checkmate... Said player does not analyze the one loss, as it was a dull game and he made a stupid blunder in time trouble. XYZ gambit is wonderful. B) suppose the player analyzes his one loss, notices his compensation dwindles and he goes to a lost endgame even if there would have been neither time trouble, nor blunder. XYZ gambit only works against weaker players.

@tpr

The question is not if it is better to analyse won games than lost games. The question is if analysing won games is useful or not. Analysing lost games is better than analysing won (or drawn games), but analysing all games is even better.

@tpr The question is not if it is better to analyse won games than lost games. The question is if analysing won games is useful or not. Analysing lost games is better than analysing won (or drawn games), but analysing all games is even better.

"analysing all games is even better"

  • Time is limited, so use it to what brings most benefit.
"analysing all games is even better" * Time is limited, so use it to what brings most benefit.

@tpr said ^

When you lost a game, your opponent taught you a lesson, take it!
When you won a game, you taught your opponent a lesson, move on!

true but this is not for me

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/h1uW8RDz) > When you lost a game, your opponent taught you a lesson, take it! > When you won a game, you taught your opponent a lesson, move on! true but this is not for me

I would analyze all my games (and found it quite profitable).

I would analyze all my games (and found it quite profitable).

A few months ago, I saw a game that started 1e4 b6 2 Nf3 Bb7 3 Bc4 Bxe4. White continued without taking advantage of the opportunity that was available at that point. I do not remember who won, but I suspect that both players would have benefitted from a second look at the position.

@tpr said in #24:

... Time is limited, so use it to what brings most benefit.

One does not necessarily know, in advance, what benefit one will get from a second look at a game.

@GCVM said in #7:

... Should you analyse all games, or only ''tricky'' ones? Maybe ones in which you're not sure the opponent played the best moves?

I think that that has to be your call. Only you have experience with how much you find in your games. Only you know how you might otherwise spend the time.

@petri999 said in #15:

... analysis by engine tends be almost useless. So analyze with your own head regardless you have engine or not.

@GCVM said in #16:

... Engines see what you don't.

@petri999 said in#17:

... problem is that is attempt on passive learning which rarely produces any results. I am yet to see person who came good at maths by looking how model solution flow. I've loads those who did it till they got it right and these one learned something. Engine can point to you point where you should have done something differently but looking for solution should be purely mental exercise

It is a ROUTINE part of math education to provide worked-out examples. Facilities are ROUTINELY made available to provide additional help.

@Druismat said in #18:

... Analyzing when I lost a game has never crossed my mind, it does not feel like a fun thing to do. Sure, if you want to get better you should learn from your mistakes, the only thing I ever wanted to get better at was calculation. And indeed if I miscalculate a winning attack and lose I might analyze just to see if I understand why I miscalculated. It made me an even stronger attacker than I was before and that makes me quite happy, chess makes me feel great when I attack but it also gets boring if the position is equal, drawish or when I have to defend, and then it is very hard to concentrate but when I attack I am totally zoned in. Like the paveman I am (patzer-caveman)

After the [Event "casual bullet game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/5sJehxZ3"] [Date "2026.06.16"] [Black "lichess AI level 6"] [Result "0-1"] [TimeControl "120+1"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] game, did you take a second look at the position after 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e6 6 Nb3 Qc7 7 Be3 a6 8 f3 d5 9 exd5 exd5 10 Qd2 h6, and notice that you could have had an ~1-point advantage by playing 11 O-O-O instead of 11 Nd4 ?

A few months ago, I saw a game that started 1e4 b6 2 Nf3 Bb7 3 Bc4 Bxe4. White continued without taking advantage of the opportunity that was available at that point. I do not remember who won, but I suspect that both players would have benefitted from a second look at the position. @tpr said in #24: > ... Time is limited, so use it to what brings most benefit. One does not necessarily know, in advance, what benefit one will get from a second look at a game. @GCVM said in #7: > ... Should you analyse all games, or only ''tricky'' ones? Maybe ones in which you're not sure the opponent played the best moves? I think that that has to be your call. Only you have experience with how much you find in your games. Only you know how you might otherwise spend the time. @petri999 said in #15: > ... analysis by engine tends be almost useless. So analyze with your own head regardless you have engine or not. @GCVM said in #16: > ... Engines see what you don't. @petri999 said in#17: > ... problem is that is attempt on passive learning which rarely produces any results. I am yet to see person who came good at maths by looking how model solution flow. I've loads those who did it till they got it right and these one learned something. Engine can point to you point where you should have done something differently but looking for solution should be purely mental exercise It is a ROUTINE part of math education to provide worked-out examples. Facilities are ROUTINELY made available to provide additional help. @Druismat said in #18: > ... Analyzing when I lost a game has never crossed my mind, it does not feel like a fun thing to do. Sure, if you want to get better you should learn from your mistakes, the only thing I ever wanted to get better at was calculation. And indeed if I miscalculate a winning attack and lose I might analyze just to see if I understand why I miscalculated. It made me an even stronger attacker than I was before and that makes me quite happy, chess makes me feel great when I attack but it also gets boring if the position is equal, drawish or when I have to defend, and then it is very hard to concentrate but when I attack I am totally zoned in. Like the paveman I am (patzer-caveman) After the [Event "casual bullet game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/5sJehxZ3"] [Date "2026.06.16"] [Black "lichess AI level 6"] [Result "0-1"] [TimeControl "120+1"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] game, did you take a second look at the position after 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e6 6 Nb3 Qc7 7 Be3 a6 8 f3 d5 9 exd5 exd5 10 Qd2 h6, and notice that you could have had an ~1-point advantage by playing 11 O-O-O instead of 11 Nd4 ?

@tpr said ^

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

Hmm.

https://lichess.org/@/NDpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-let-your-brilliance-be-your-guide/kokU8zoW#studying-wins-vs-losses---a-regression-analysis-of-elo-outcomes-yiannakoulias-2026

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/viHgWBtN) > No, analyzing your won games is far less useful than analyzing your lost games. Hmm. https://lichess.org/@/NDpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-let-your-brilliance-be-your-guide/kokU8zoW#studying-wins-vs-losses---a-regression-analysis-of-elo-outcomes-yiannakoulias-2026

It depends

If your is like your black and this happens in your game 1.f3?! e6 2.g4?? Qh4# then it’s best to not analyze it

Here’s the point if the game was very easy win in 10-15 moves analysis on that may not be as helpful as a hard-fought win against Magnus or anyone much stronger than you in a simul then analyzing it will be helpful especially if it’s like 50-100+ moves

For example If your 1400 FIDE and play with a 1500 USCF you both are same level so it will be medium difficulty (if it’s not either something happened that your opponent missed or they are overrated) so you win then obviously analyzing it will help

And if your game was very easy you may not have so much mistakes but make sure to check if you have mistakes if your not sure if your 101% sure that you played a perfect game it would be worth it to still check unless it was the fools mate but no one with 7 brain cells is falling for that

Thank you

It depends If your is like your black and this happens in your game 1.f3?! e6 2.g4?? Qh4# then it’s best to not analyze it Here’s the point if the game was very easy win in 10-15 moves analysis on that may not be as helpful as a hard-fought win against Magnus or anyone much stronger than you in a simul then analyzing it will be helpful especially if it’s like 50-100+ moves For example If your 1400 FIDE and play with a 1500 USCF you both are same level so it will be medium difficulty (if it’s not either something happened that your opponent missed or they are overrated) so you win then obviously analyzing it will help And if your game was very easy you may not have so much mistakes but make sure to check if you have mistakes if your not sure if your 101% sure that you played a perfect game it would be worth it to still check unless it was the fools mate but no one with 7 brain cells is falling for that Thank you

There are some things one can learn from analysing a won game, that one cannot learn from analysing a lost game. Improving conversion method, for example. Take a look at this game:

https://lichess.org/BZGCOojhCfLD

White had a mate-in-3 many times but failed to find it each time, instead playing quite messily even though White held the advantage.

Other things one can perhaps learn from analysing a won game: efficient time management, identifying tactical weaknesses, etc.

There are some things one can learn from analysing a won game, that one cannot learn from analysing a lost game. Improving conversion method, for example. Take a look at this game: https://lichess.org/BZGCOojhCfLD White had a mate-in-3 many times but failed to find it each time, instead playing quite messily even though White held the advantage. Other things one can perhaps learn from analysing a won game: efficient time management, identifying tactical weaknesses, etc.