I have been told from various sources that analyzing a game by yourself first before consulting a computer is one of the best things you can do to sharpen your critical chess thought process
Couldn’t agree more. I clicked computer analysis by habit which took the meaning and learning out of my own analysis. I now analyze/annotate BEFORE running the analysis.
I think I mentioned this on the pod but I don't usually have the willpower to actually write down my analysis before running my games through the engine. I do think that's the best way. But engine analysis, if you're thoughtful about reading the output, can be helpful on its own.
I'm surprised you classify Rxd6 as an error of calculation. It seems like you calculated it correctly, but made an error of evaluation on the resulting position (a one-pawn advantage is rarely enough to win in an opposite-colored bishops endgame).
I have been told from various sources that analyzing a game by yourself first before consulting a computer is one of the best things you can do to sharpen your critical chess thought process
Couldn’t agree more. I clicked computer analysis by habit which took the meaning and learning out of my own analysis. I now analyze/annotate BEFORE running the analysis.
I think I mentioned this on the pod but I don't usually have the willpower to actually write down my analysis before running my games through the engine. I do think that's the best way. But engine analysis, if you're thoughtful about reading the output, can be helpful on its own.
I'm surprised you classify Rxd6 as an error of calculation. It seems like you calculated it correctly, but made an error of evaluation on the resulting position (a one-pawn advantage is rarely enough to win in an opposite-colored bishops endgame).
Thanks Dan! I thought I had a win, which was the error. Bishops of the opposite color are often drawn positions