English Chess Forum

I am sure that, like me, you have had many games over the board where both players took time to do a post match analysis of the position and what might have been.

It is generally regarded as a good means of improvement but I wonder if anyone ever considered that it might also be a double edged sword, particularly so if it is a regular opponent that tends to stick to the same positions, as you could very well be priming them with just the ammunition they need to beat you the next time (e.g. fixing holes in their theory or pointing out long term strategical advantages they never knew existed) .

I expect Joey has a point, but I would suggest there is a tradition of players entering into the spirit of post-game analysis, and of the stronger of the two being generous with his or her time.

You can't beat a good post mortem. My favourites were with the late George Ellison. He always wanted to prove he had a good position; objective analysis hardly came into it, in those pre-computer days...

Nick Ivell wrote: ↑

Sat May 18, 2024 12:56 pm

You can't beat a good post mortem. My favourites were with the late George Ellison. He always wanted to prove he had a good position; objective analysis hardly came into it, in those pre-computer days...

I would have loved to have witnessed a post mortem between him and Geoff Taylor - another player who was never losing, no matter what the position facing him looked like, and would spend more time "winning" his post mortem matches then the games themselves

Nick Ivell wrote: ↑

Sat May 18, 2024 12:56 pm

You can't beat a good post mortem. ...

I have a happy memory of a Bedford clubmate, now sadly deceased, who explained a defeat from a good position thus: "I was winning... but he was so ugly!!"

Some great memories of post-match analysis sessions (often later exposed by silicon, but hey).

There is a sort of etiquette. If I felt I had played well against a stronger player, I would respectfully suggest looking at the game. It was always gratifying if they agreed and I would endeavour to learn from it. Slightly disconcerting if they politely (or less politely!) declined! Never sure if it was because they needed to be somewhere else, get some lunch/dinner, preferred to be in the pub, or the game was a bit rubbish!

Is there a convention that you should let the much stronger player suggest looking at the game, or is that too deferential?

For example, I played quite well against GM Christian Bauer and lost at 4NCL. He readily agreed to a post mortem, and I learnt a lot from it. There was no suggestion that he was the big 'I am'.

Amongst modern players, Kramnik is a bit of an "always winning the post mortem" type isn't he.

As one of the best players ever, I think I will take that from Vlad.

Nothing to do with a post mortem, but one titled East European beat me and then pointedly threw the score sheet in the bin on the way out of the room.

The clubmate to whom I referred previously was pretty good at the quick stuff. Long ago, the late and much missed Sandy Corden was organising a lightning competition in the club. Having been walloped by our friend, I mooched over to Sandy to report the result.
"He beat you, then" said Sandy, without looking up.
"Yes, how did you know?"
"He said 'Well played!'"
Perceptive man, Sandy.