Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The approach I advocated in my previous post has proven to be very valuable for assessing pawn moves. For other moves it is not very suitable.
At the moment I'm analysing my lost games by identifying the point where I'm lost.
Then I try to identify what the seperate elements of my demise are.
After that I follow the footsteps of these elements backwards and try to find the moves that are the cause. This way my defeats don't come out of the blue anymore.
It is obvious that this is the right way to analyse a game. Why become obvious matters only obvious after a daunting process of reasoning? After all they must have been obvious all the time!