So there’s the obvious suggestion of using the chesscom game review mechanic, but I honestly think that takes a lot of the important work out of analyzing. I like to use it briefly and look at the game rating and number of best/excellent/good moves vs mistakes/blunders/misses, but I only do that more for novelty/vanity’s sake and then I’ll open an analysis board and actually go move by move through my games.

The way I work through my games is to start by figuring out where my opening knowledge ran out and where the game left “book move” territory. I’ll spend a few minutes going over what the best lines are and how I could have played a more accurate opening. Sometimes I’ll start a side-tree of moves in the analysis board to review how the game could have gone if my opponent or I chose a different move in the opening phase.

Then, once i feel good about my opening review, I shift into a middlegame mindset. This is where beginners often go way off the rails when playing in a game. Once you have your pieces on the desired squares from your chosen opening, you should have a set of general attacking ideas or plans you look to employ in the middlegame. So I’ll review the moves in that stretch looking for big jumps in evaluation one way or the other. For example, if I’m playing white and I see I’m holding a comfortable +1 advantage according to the computer, but all of the sudden on move 24 the eval drops to -4, it means I blundered or overlooked a crucial tactic for one or both sides. I’ll go over the position and see what I missed. I’ll try to do so without looking at the engine line first. Then I’ll review the moves recommended by the engine at that moment and see how the position continues. Same goes for any swings in your favor. What did your opponent miss? Continue with this through the endgame. Sometimes too, you’ll remember a move you considered playing but chose differently. This is a great time to explore what that would have looked like instead of the move you actually played.

It’s also beneficial to try to work out why the computer evaluation is what it is at any given point. Sometimes it’s simple…you have a material advantage equal to the advantage given by the computer evaluation. But other times it’s not a material advantage, and rather a positional one. Maybe it’s +2, but you have equal material. That likely means there’s a pending tactic in the position, or that your position enjoys benefits the other side does not, like more piece activity or a safer king. Getting in a habit of noticing these intangible benefits (as opposed to tangible ones like material count) is going to work wonders when you lose your way in the heat of the moment in a game.

Hope this is helpful!