Analyzing games - What makes it difficult?

Observing topics here there are always questions for help in analyzing without any questions and analysis about the games played and showed.

It is logical that this leads to spoiling time. Except laziness, what makes it difficult to look into the games and ask a concrete problem about thinking or decisions in a game?

Can I +1 this?

I think before we claim analyzing games is "difficult", we have to keep in mind that people have different objectives when analyzing their games or asking for help.

Some people partake in chess and these forums not to become stronger players, but to have fun or socialize. Not everyone is trying to be a Grandmaster or play "optimal" chess. I've seen many reverse bong clouds and such :-)

The learning process in general is probably poorly understood. From what I understand, active learning (doing puzzles, playing games and analyzing) is probably more efficient than passive learning (Reading books, looking at computer lines), especially for beginner players.

I also think analyzing your lichess blitz games if you are beginner is a very poor way to improve at the game if efficiency is your objective.

In behaviorism, there is a performance and learning zone. I would compare taking your time to solve puzzles, or playing a long game where you are trying to play your best chess and try out new ideas to analyze after to be the "learning zone". Blitz on lichess is the complete opposite (especially if you just care about rating points as an indicator of your improvement). As a beginner, you won't have time to process and learn. You are purely trying to perform playing whatever you know best rather than exploring what you don't know.

Back to the original post, if we are talking about character traits like "laziness" that impair the analysis or learning process we can include hubris and anything else that will generally cause a loss of objectivity.

@jupp53: it is your perspective that the way they are analyzing the games is not correct hence it being "difficult". However we have no way to tell what they want from chess and what they are "getting" from it so personally, it is difficult for me to judge them for the way they analyze (whether it is difficult or easy). I don't really like to use words like lazy because that is a judgement and we can never know who another really is because we all have their own unique set of experiences and are changing all the time. It's what makes each of us unique.

If you want to analyze "better" or make analyzing "easier", assuming you have a fixed amount of time, the best way is probably to find a coach or another player that you believe analyzes well and ask them to show you their process (analyze a game with them). Ideally the player should either be a really good and patient teacher or only slightly better than you so the experience is symbiotic but not necessary of course.

Every time, I analyze with another chess player or even play a game, I meld their unique perspective on the game into my own, making me a more diverse chess player. We, chess players, are shaped by the games we have had to privilege to play and see.

@jadanac

You try to understand and describe without judging, which is in the farest way a therapeutic or religious approach. Much of your thoughts is correct and well founded, but put in the wrong place. Using therapy without mandate is abusive, mostly at least if not always. (A heavy problem of psychoanalysis btw.)

Asking a question for help and showing a game without any laid down thought about it except "I don't understand why I lose" is obstruction in itself. This is the 1st point. Some people, intelligent people, I met have really difficulties to put a question about their games. This is the 2nd point.

See this descriptive, without any judgement. Take "laziness" without judgement. It was not intended without judgement, I admit. But it is possible to take it descriptive or positive. Paul Lafarge - Das Recht auf Faulheit is a source.

@jupp53

I agree with everything that you said, as far as I understand it :-) You seem much more knowledgeable than me in this area although I am interested in it immensely. I may check out that book you recommended. It seems quite interesting!

In response to your initial question, asking the "right" question is always the hardest part followed closely by finding the "right" answer :-)

I personally feel that intelligent people who don't ask the "right" questions to foster their chess improvement have either:

1. Have not had the privilege of a strong chess education or have health/personal issues affecting their ability to process and learn. By far the majority is the lack of chess education. If they did as many chess puzzles as arithmetic problems, they would also begin seeing chess differently.

2. Don't care enough about improving and I don't think this phenomenon is particular to chess analysis. I see this in sports, games, relationships and all areas of life. They could be busy and have very good reasons to not want to improve and just play for pure enjoyment.

Cheers!

@jadanac

You're right with this two ideas. There are others too. Playing chess just for fun is all right.

If you want to get better (not only in chess) putting "a" question is important. The "right" question is something we have to learn.

Example:

For searching moves the Lasker Rule is helpful. Search all checks, search all captures, search all threats in this order.

The winner of the german chess championship this year is publishing a little series of commented games from this event this week. In the first video he says about a move, that he could have find it in case he had searched all captures. So this rule is even a help for GMs.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mXOeBFYBO8 is the link to the video. It is in german.