What I like to do is a combination of most of the above. I waiver from time to time on what is best for analysis but that aside I 100% agree with the idea of learning from the mistakes and how to make them stick. What I do is add the mistakes and blunders to a custom chessable course and cycle them with spaced repetition. Hopefully before the end of the year I’ll have a full course ready for people to consume.
The technique I used - which worked really well - was keeping a list of positions where I’ve made a mistake (links to customized lichess edit position pages), classified by the type of error. When I make another mistake of the same type, I not only add a new position to the list, but I review all of the old ones as well. That way, I’m reviewing the mistakes that are the most frequent in my play - and the reviewing process gets more and more thorough if the problem persists.
I use my own classification- things that I thought went wrong and that are “treatable” with a common technique. For example, I’ve got one group I call “poor understanding of Slav middlegames”. Another is just “rook endgames”. Another is “rushed to exchange pieces”. Basically, these classifications came from my own going through each game and deciding where I should have done better, and what the source of the problem was. Sometimes I adjust classifications- combining groups or splitting up a large group - as seems appropriate.
Could you please explain how to put your positions for review onto Anki flashcards? I have not been able to copy positions from chess.com or lichess. What is the process? Thank you so much. I love the idea of putting my blunders on flashcards.
Sure. I take a screenshot of the position. I drop that photo onto the front of the Anki flashcard. I have a deck called "Critical Positions". Then on the back part of the card, I put the critical line and what I missed.
The other option is getting the FEN and making a Lichess Study where you can review them before training or games.
As a big believer in the power of analyzing one's own games, I really enjoyed this post. The "Write it out, Talk it out" section is right on, and what you say here suggests that the Chernev method (or something a little less focused on completeness) is somewhat more effective than either machine-aided approach (although machine-aided is better than nothing at all).
There's one other benefit to all this analysis beyond pattern recognition and learning from one's mistakes. It's hard to actually define, but I would describe it as "deepening one's understanding of how chess actually works." By doing the deeper work of analysis (in conjunction with reading books about chess strategy), I'd argue that we're training our brains to make better intuitive decisions as well as becoming more open to a wider variety of plans and moves.
I can't argue with that. It worked for Gukesh for sure! Appreciate the comment. The Chernev method (I'm coining that BTW), just takes a lot of time. Maybe for most adult improvers it would be enough to play one slow game each week and do one slow analysis? Not sure.
I always enjoy reading your articles.
What I like to do is a combination of most of the above. I waiver from time to time on what is best for analysis but that aside I 100% agree with the idea of learning from the mistakes and how to make them stick. What I do is add the mistakes and blunders to a custom chessable course and cycle them with spaced repetition. Hopefully before the end of the year I’ll have a full course ready for people to consume.
The technique I used - which worked really well - was keeping a list of positions where I’ve made a mistake (links to customized lichess edit position pages), classified by the type of error. When I make another mistake of the same type, I not only add a new position to the list, but I review all of the old ones as well. That way, I’m reviewing the mistakes that are the most frequent in my play - and the reviewing process gets more and more thorough if the problem persists.
What categories of mistakes do you use? How do you classify them?
I use my own classification- things that I thought went wrong and that are “treatable” with a common technique. For example, I’ve got one group I call “poor understanding of Slav middlegames”. Another is just “rook endgames”. Another is “rushed to exchange pieces”. Basically, these classifications came from my own going through each game and deciding where I should have done better, and what the source of the problem was. Sometimes I adjust classifications- combining groups or splitting up a large group - as seems appropriate.
Sometimes a single mistake can belong to multiple groups.
Could you please explain how to put your positions for review onto Anki flashcards? I have not been able to copy positions from chess.com or lichess. What is the process? Thank you so much. I love the idea of putting my blunders on flashcards.
Sure. I take a screenshot of the position. I drop that photo onto the front of the Anki flashcard. I have a deck called "Critical Positions". Then on the back part of the card, I put the critical line and what I missed.
The other option is getting the FEN and making a Lichess Study where you can review them before training or games.
As a big believer in the power of analyzing one's own games, I really enjoyed this post. The "Write it out, Talk it out" section is right on, and what you say here suggests that the Chernev method (or something a little less focused on completeness) is somewhat more effective than either machine-aided approach (although machine-aided is better than nothing at all).
There's one other benefit to all this analysis beyond pattern recognition and learning from one's mistakes. It's hard to actually define, but I would describe it as "deepening one's understanding of how chess actually works." By doing the deeper work of analysis (in conjunction with reading books about chess strategy), I'd argue that we're training our brains to make better intuitive decisions as well as becoming more open to a wider variety of plans and moves.
I can't argue with that. It worked for Gukesh for sure! Appreciate the comment. The Chernev method (I'm coining that BTW), just takes a lot of time. Maybe for most adult improvers it would be enough to play one slow game each week and do one slow analysis? Not sure.