How do I identify strengths/weaknesses?

I want to figure out where to put my time so I can kind of bring all parts of my chess game to the same level.

I'll give an example of what I mean. Let's say on average, I play like a 500 in the opening, 600 in the midgame, and 800 in the endgame. Obviously I am just throwing out numbers here but I need to give context.

How can I figure out which parts of my game I need to address more urgently than others to become a more well rounded player (even though I'd still be terrible)?

Is it something I should even be concerned about at my level? I don't want to neglect anything and solidify bad habits and I worry that just trying to absorb whatever information I can isn't really doing anything for me.

TL;DR: I don't trust my own ability to analyze my own play even with game reviews please help.

You're grossly overestimating me if you think I've ever had a brilliant move. But yes, I look at the analysis after every game. I don't have unlimited lessons so that's not really an option for me right now. I don't know how to look at the analysis results and actually apply them to my games. It's cool know where and when I messes up but it doesn't help much. I might remember not to do a specific move on a specific board state but it doesn't really teach me anything I can apply in general.

Also I have no clue what chessbase is. Is it like an opening database?

#1
"which parts of my game I need to address more urgently "
++ A rating of 660 is a sign of frequent blunders.
So blunder checking is most urgent.
Always check your intended move is no blunder before you play it.
As long as you hang pieces and pawns all the rest is useless.

Wow I never thought about not blundering my pieces! Thanks! ☺️

Because I'm bad at chess? My analysis would be severely lacking any substance.

While tygxc is correct, that’s a gross oversimplification. Your games are won and lost by blunders, but it isn’t as simple as hearing “s t o p  b l u n d e r i n g” and you instantly stop blundering. It takes time, to look around and see what pieces are hanging, and it’s just a habit you’ll have to learn. Check every move to make sure nothing is hanging, etc.

Here’s something I’ve heard on the forums, although I’ve never employed it myself, so I cannot vouch for its usefulness. Play a game (unrated, if you like) and your main objective is not to win. Just try not to blunder any pieces. This will build your board awareness and you’ll be able to see if anything is hanging and defend it appropriately.

Isn't that a fools errand? Like, unless I play perfectly, I'm going to hang something eventually unless someone loses on time. I don't understand.

Your objective is to try to not hang anything, so you get used to not hanging stuff, and you can apply it in your real games when it becomes a habit.

Also, none of us play perfectly. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. A negative attitude rarely yields positive results,

I'm not a positive person, sorry. Nothing personal against you or anything, I know you are trying to help.

As a chess trainer, I'd say that you shouldn't be concerned with how you play the different stages at your level. Let's look at it practically. When was the last time you've entered the endgame with near equal material? Maybe you were a pawn up, but not a piece or more. Never happened, right? So proper endgame study will not have much meaning for you right now. The only thing you'll want to know is how to checkmate your opponent with a queen or a rook (I'm sure you know this already) and that you'll want to promote pawns in the endgame to get  a new or more queens. Now let's look at the opening. Opening study can be a huge drain in time. Proper opening study will lead to small advantages for white or equal positions for black. That's what opening theory is all about. Again, practically, when was the last time you played a game where one side had a small advantage and pressed it home while not giving away any chances? Again, never happened, right? Just knowing the basics: fighting for the center, developing your pieces towards the center and castling is enough to play the opening well at your level. You don't need to do more studying there. In the middlegame, it's the same story. You're not winning or losing by fine strategic play, you win or lose because you've won or lost more pieces than your opponent. 

All of this is not meant to as an insult, it's just to point out how important tactics really are. And the importance of tactics never end. If I play 30 perfect moves and then lose my rook, I lose my game. Tactics is important for everyone. At the lower level though, they absolutely decide each and every game. 

At your level, therefore, you just need to focus on tactics. At your level that means trying to not give away any pieces and taking everything you get offered for free. Yes, that might be hard right now. Every chess player that got stronger went through this phase of learning not to give everything away. You'll get better at it eventually. 

If you want to train yourself up, what I would suggest is the following. Play 1 game of chess and then analyse your game. You do this on your own, no computer help. The only thing you're going to look for is whether you could have won or lost a piece on that move in 1 or 2 moves if you played something else. If you lost a piece for nothing, look what you could have done differently. Take 5-10 minutes of doing this. Then, and only then, look at computer analysis (if you can). Go over the game again and see if the computer points out 1-2 move combinations that could've won a piece or more that you didn't see. Every other suggestion by the computer, you just ignore. You're not strong enough yet to understand whether the computer is giving out good advice for you or whether it's too specific to even try and learn something from. All the other stuff is not important either. You can make a worse move and still win every game if you manage to stop giving away your own pieces and start winning every piece they offer. All the other stuff will become more important later, from say 1400 onwards.

How do I look at my games to analyze them without the computer butting in with its suggestions? Also you're assuming quite a bit if you think I can get to 1400 😅 I'll believe that if I see it. Maybe if I'm lucky, 1000 might barely be possible for me by the time I'm 40.

If you click on one of your games, you can just analyse without a computer. You just walk through your game and if you want to check out a different move, you can just make it on the board. 

I wasn't assuming you would reach 1400, my point was that other stuff, like learning a bit about the middlegame, will start becoming more important if you (would) reach that rating. 

#6
"Wow I never thought about not blundering my pieces!"
++ It is a matter of mental discipline.
First you think about your move.
Then you do not play your selected move.
Then you check it is no blunder.
Only then you play it.
If you are too impulsive, then sit on your hands.
"When you see a good move, look for a better one." - Lasker

I was 200 rated when i first started playing chess few months ago, then i learned some tricky openings, learned some tactics, watched videos', played puzzle streak on lichess and puzzle rush on chess.com, analyzed games played by engines, studied checkmate patterns and endgame tricks, Now Look where i am 1200 ratings, i don't consider my self good, but i am better than i was before, i have only one tip, Never Give Up!

When he played a move, check the diagonals it is looking for or files, think why did he moved that piece there, then check what is the difference where it was and where it is now, then you can spot if he has blundered, and double pawns, smothered king, three pieces looking at the king,(Lonely king) those are examples of the weakness of the opponents, Think in that way, you will become 1000 easily!!   study and analyze games played by other Gms and Engines, and your own games....! and think as far deep as you can and then, think one step further....

I suppose that could work assuming I can figure out the why part. :/

You mean focusing on openings first, then midgame, then endgame? Also yes, I know to look before making a move so I don't hang any pieces but that doesn't mean anything. You might as well say "don't be bad at the game".