Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

How to Actually Review Your Games on Lichess (And Learn From Them)

It is an instructive game and a good read.
There were many mistakes from both sides.
That is probably because of the 10+5 time control.
I prefer 15+10, but I guess it is too hard to get a pairing at 2650 level.
You won a drawn ending.
It is more instructive to analyse a game you lost.
The loss helps to remember the mistakes.
A win helps to forget the mistakes.

It is an instructive game and a good read. There were many mistakes from both sides. That is probably because of the 10+5 time control. I prefer 15+10, but I guess it is too hard to get a pairing at 2650 level. You won a drawn ending. It is more instructive to analyse a game you lost. The loss helps to remember the mistakes. A win helps to forget the mistakes.

@tpr said in #2:

It is an instructive game and a good read.
There were many mistakes from both sides.
That is probably because of the 10+5 time control.
I prefer 15+10, but I guess it is too hard to get a pairing at 2650 level.
You won a drawn ending.
It is more instructive to analyse a game you lost.
The loss helps to remember the mistakes.
A win helps to forget the mistakes.

You’re absolutely right, losses are often the most instructive games to analyze. There’s a saying I really like: ‘If you win, you taught your opponent a lesson. If you lose, your opponent taught you a lesson.’ That principle holds true in chess as much as anywhere.

My slightly unusual problem is that on Lichess Rapid I’m usually paired with lower-rated opponents (probably 90% of the time), which means I mostly win. And even when I do lose, it’s often because of internet issues, a cheater, or simply not paying attention: not the kind of games that are rich for real learning. But yes, for players around your level, digging into losses can be hugely beneficial.

That said, I still found this particular game useful to look at. Even though it wasn’t flawless, it came out to 93% accuracy (though I take accuracy stats with a grain of salt, they can be deceptive). The endgame especially is interesting: objectively the queen endgame was drawn, but being up a pawn meant I could keep pressing by just slowly pushing the passer. With practical chances, sneaky queen checks, and the possibility of trading queens, I wasn’t risking anything. The computer would hold it easily, but for a human under time pressure it’s another story.

So yes, analyzing losses is gold, but even in wins there’s often plenty to learn, especially when you focus on the psychology and practical aspects rather than just the engine eval.

@tpr said in #2: > It is an instructive game and a good read. > There were many mistakes from both sides. > That is probably because of the 10+5 time control. > I prefer 15+10, but I guess it is too hard to get a pairing at 2650 level. > You won a drawn ending. > It is more instructive to analyse a game you lost. > The loss helps to remember the mistakes. > A win helps to forget the mistakes. You’re absolutely right, losses are often the most instructive games to analyze. There’s a saying I really like: ‘If you win, you taught your opponent a lesson. If you lose, your opponent taught you a lesson.’ That principle holds true in chess as much as anywhere. My slightly unusual problem is that on Lichess Rapid I’m usually paired with lower-rated opponents (probably 90% of the time), which means I mostly win. And even when I do lose, it’s often because of internet issues, a cheater, or simply not paying attention: not the kind of games that are rich for real learning. But yes, for players around your level, digging into losses can be hugely beneficial. That said, I still found this particular game useful to look at. Even though it wasn’t flawless, it came out to 93% accuracy (though I take accuracy stats with a grain of salt, they can be deceptive). The endgame especially is interesting: objectively the queen endgame was drawn, but being up a pawn meant I could keep pressing by just slowly pushing the passer. With practical chances, sneaky queen checks, and the possibility of trading queens, I wasn’t risking anything. The computer would hold it easily, but for a human under time pressure it’s another story. So yes, analyzing losses is gold, but even in wins there’s often plenty to learn, especially when you focus on the psychology and practical aspects rather than just the engine eval.

I liked the analysis, but I don't quite understand why you played the counterintuitive 8.Kf8 when having the possibility to cover with either Be7 or Ne7

I liked the analysis, but I don't quite understand why you played the counterintuitive 8.Kf8 when having the possibility to cover with either Be7 or Ne7

@TerZen123456789 said in #4:

I liked the analysis, but I don't quite understand why you played the counterintuitive 8.Kf8 when having the possibility to cover with either Be7 or Ne7

Great question, and thanks for pointing that out! You're absolutely right that 8...Be7 or 8...Ne7 may seem more intuitive ways to block the check, and under slightly different circumstances they might well be preferable.
In this particular game, though, I had already taken on d6 with the bishop rather than the queen. If I had captured with the queen, it would’ve stayed on the diagonal and prevented White’s bishop from coming to f4, a square that can be quite annoying to deal with. But since I chose to take with the bishop, I wanted to keep it active on d6 rather than retreat it just to preserve castling rights. Retreating would’ve undermined the whole point of that earlier decision.
As for 8...Ne7, it does block the check, but it also concedes the d4-pawn, which I was trying to hold onto for now. Plus, the knight on e7 ends up fairly passive and awkward. Neither of those moves is bad, but both give White a more comfortable position.
That’s why I went with 8...Kf8. It’s definitely unconventional and forfeits castling, but it keeps the bishop active, holds onto the d4-pawn (at least for now, as White can’t grab it immediately due to Bxh2 winning the queen), and aligns with the broader strategic goals I had in mind. Interestingly, most players in the database also opted for 8...Kf8 in this position, which suggests that despite its drawbacks, it holds up reasonably well.
Also, losing castling rights isn’t always fatal, especially in positions where the kingside isn’t under immediate pressure. In fact, in this game it ended up helping me: once we transitioned into the endgame, my king was already closer to the center and better placed to support key operations. So while 8...Kf8 might look dubious at first glance, I think it made practical sense given the position’s demands.
Appreciate you raising the question anyway.

@TerZen123456789 said in #4: > I liked the analysis, but I don't quite understand why you played the counterintuitive 8.Kf8 when having the possibility to cover with either Be7 or Ne7 Great question, and thanks for pointing that out! You're absolutely right that 8...Be7 or 8...Ne7 may seem more intuitive ways to block the check, and under slightly different circumstances they might well be preferable. In this particular game, though, I had already taken on d6 with the bishop rather than the queen. If I had captured with the queen, it would’ve stayed on the diagonal and prevented White’s bishop from coming to f4, a square that can be quite annoying to deal with. But since I chose to take with the bishop, I wanted to keep it active on d6 rather than retreat it just to preserve castling rights. Retreating would’ve undermined the whole point of that earlier decision. As for 8...Ne7, it does block the check, but it also concedes the d4-pawn, which I was trying to hold onto for now. Plus, the knight on e7 ends up fairly passive and awkward. Neither of those moves is bad, but both give White a more comfortable position. That’s why I went with 8...Kf8. It’s definitely unconventional and forfeits castling, but it keeps the bishop active, holds onto the d4-pawn (at least for now, as White can’t grab it immediately due to Bxh2 winning the queen), and aligns with the broader strategic goals I had in mind. Interestingly, most players in the database also opted for 8...Kf8 in this position, which suggests that despite its drawbacks, it holds up reasonably well. Also, losing castling rights isn’t always fatal, especially in positions where the kingside isn’t under immediate pressure. In fact, in this game it ended up helping me: once we transitioned into the endgame, my king was already closer to the center and better placed to support key operations. So while 8...Kf8 might look dubious at first glance, I think it made practical sense given the position’s demands. Appreciate you raising the question anyway.

@Lizard1 said in #5:

Thank you for the detailed answer, I also thought about it getting hard to get the h8 rook into the game, but now I think I got your idea of using it on the h-file

@Lizard1 said in #5: > Thank you for the detailed answer, I also thought about it getting hard to get the h8 rook into the game, but now I think I got your idea of using it on the h-file

This was a great form!
...

This was a great form! ...

@Lizard1 said in #1:

Comments on lichess.org/@/lizard1/blog/how-to-actually-review-your-games-on-lichess-and-learn-from-them/u0Tqx2aM
this is a great blog man, respects.

@Lizard1 said in #1: > Comments on lichess.org/@/lizard1/blog/how-to-actually-review-your-games-on-lichess-and-learn-from-them/u0Tqx2aM this is a great blog man, respects.

I also find Self analysis is important Before using the engine I totally agree.
The same mind set while doing self analysis is the mind set you'll probably use while playing your next game
Thanks for the post

I also find Self analysis is important Before using the engine I totally agree. The same mind set while doing self analysis is the mind set you'll probably use while playing your next game Thanks for the post

I like your idea about delving deep into one particular endgame. It seems to me it helps approach a balance between the "three stages" as in Capablanca's famous quote.

I like your idea about delving deep into one particular endgame. It seems to me it helps approach a balance between the "three stages" as in Capablanca's famous quote.