how to analyze a position

I go up and down allot, usually staying around 1000-1100. But that is about to change. I have little collection I just acquired that is opening my eyes rather quickly to how the game is played by masters. within a few months you'll see my rating skyrocket. One thing I've never been able to do is properly analyze a given position. Most chess authors don't really go into how to analyze games, just that you have to in order to get better. So here is HOW TO PROPERLY ANALYZE ANY POSITION: 1) Am I ahead, behind, or even in material? 2) Are my pawns well placed, and how do they compare with my opponents? 3) How much freedom of action do my pieces have, and is my degree of mobility greater than my opponents? 4) Are the kings safe or exposed to attack? 5) What is the threat?

I disagree. All of these things are of great importance, as well as follow principle, and basic positional understanding

Considering your skill level, keep it simple.  

Write down your plans, ideas, thoughts, how you felt, candidate moves.  Do your own analysis, and then run the game through an engine on Blunder Check only.

it looks self explanatory to me. " well placed " are my pieces developed well; "freedom of action" do my pieces enjoy a greater range of space and attacking possibilities

Take your last game for example.  You could start your analysis like this...I would do the rest of the game, but you get the idea, and there is a really good Kung Fu movie on.

 

I never implied it was a new approach. Just because you are titled doesn't mean that you're right and I'm wrong. yeah I've been playing like shit for forever and a day, but at some point things click for people and they get better. Reubin Fine published that 5 step analyses list and his rating was much higher than yours is pal. check your ego at the door

Not every move needs to be done, but i don think you need to put the work in, if you want to get proficient at analysis.  

Its on amazon prime: 7 Steps Of Kung Fu.

And you need to know when to walk away, when it becomes obvious some people dont want help.  

It would be easy to tell you what you want to hear.  But i prefer telling you what you need to hear.  Taking up the advice is entirely up to you.

I paused it :-)

No offence to OP, but I feel like at his rating level, why not just work on tactics?

I like his enthusiasm, but its just another example of not being honest with yourself and your abilities.  This is just like all those posts where someone wants to know the most agressive opening, but they are hanging pieces, missing simple tactics, and dont follow opening principles.

I found a link that might be helpful: https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-evaluate-a-position

Here is a small excerpt (with some less important parts edited out):

Correct evaluations can be very hard, or very easy, depending on each particular position. Some rely on pure calculation/tactics, and others call for a very advanced ability to see beyond the usual rules of positional chess. However, most of the time basic but solid evaluations can be constructed by making use of my system of chess imbalances.

The idea is that the vast majority of players don’t have anything to grasp onto while looking at a position. Most just start to calculate (the old, “I go there and he goes there …”), but they don’t have any idea what the position itself is calling for. Let’s face it, if you don’t know what the position’s needs are, how are you going to know which moves to calculate, or even if calculation is necessary?

Because every non-master student I’ve ever had was pretty much at a loss when it came to reading the board’s priorities, I devised a simple, easy to learn methodology for players in the 1400 to 2100 rating range. When I first did this (about 25 years ago), a lot of people laughed at me and thought it was garbage (critics always ridicule anything that’s new). However, the decades have been kind to me and this “imbalance system” is now used by many chess teachers (even grandmasters use it to teach!). In fact, the idea of imbalances has become a normal part of chess nomenclature!

Here’s my list of imbalances: Superior minor piece, Pawn structure, Space, Material, Control of a key file, Control of a hole/weak square, Lead in development, Initiative (Also known as "Pushing Your Agenda") King safety, and Statics vs. Dynamics.

This will teach you what each imbalance is, shows you its importance and its positives and negatives, and illustrates how to use a combination of all the imbalances to come up with a logical plan, or a logical series of moves, or simply one logical move. Often, no calculation is required to understand the soul of a position.

 

This is followed by some analysis of games. In his article, he advises you to buy his book How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th ed. If you do not wish to buy it, here is some interesting "imbalance" content:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/imbalances

http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/chess/planning.html

https://chess-teacher.com/exploiting-imbalances-in-chess/

Agreed, there are way too many posts like that.

Those are good principles for examining a position, OP, and very suitable for casual players. Apply them to your games and they could help to bring you up the "club level" of around 1500. The only issue is that of terminology: to analyse a position usually means to calculate variations and find the actual best move among candidate moves. What you described are useful principles for assessing a position, to uncover the strengths and weaknesses of each side. Here's what you'd typically do to find the best move:

(1) Assess the position with the principles you mentioned.

(2) Form a plan based on the assessment.

(3) Find candidate moves based on the plan, and analyse these moves.

While analysing or calculating variations is obviously needed all the time, steps (1) and (2) are especially important at the transition stage between opening and middlegame, and between middlegame and endgame.

But surely analysing a game is less important compared to not blundering pieces? I don't know about OP, but when I was that level, I blundered pieces left and right. As soon as I stopped doing that, I improved about 300-400 points.

"... In many ways, [Batsford's new edition of Logical Chess: Move by Move, written in 1957 by Irving Chernev] would a wonderful 'first' book (or first 'serious' book, after the ones which teach the rules and elementary mates, for example), and a nice gift for a young player just taking up chess. For one thing, the games are clearcut and instructive. ... they contain powerful thematic lessons for the beginning player. My only warning would be that the impressionable student should be gently reminded by a friend or mentor that most of the rules and principles Chernev so dogmatically states do not actually have any consistent validity in real-world chess, so that the book should be looked at as a way to get started thinking about positions, not as a reliable guideline to what chess is really about. With that proviso, I would recommend it heartily to anyone just starting to explore the game, ..." - IM John Watson (1999)

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/assorted-recent-books