In part 1 I tried to prove how much openings influence our results. A logical follow-up is how we can study openings. Despite we can buy many openingbooks, almost no literature exists about how we should study openings optimally. An exception is an article on the Quality Chess Blog of Nikos Ntirilis mentioning a few handy tips.

I agree with him that playing games is doubtless one of the best methods to study openings. However if we want to avoid losing a lot of rating then we better test an opening in competitions not counting for rating. Playing online games like mentioned in my article the (non-) sense of blitz can be a solution. An alternative is to play chess against an engine as Nikos recommends and which I did myself years ago (see my article chesscompositions).

The preparation of games (e.g. by using databases) is a method costing neither ratingpoints but is perceived by a lot of players as less attractive. Nevertheless if you use a proper system of archiving then it is possible to build up a nice repertoire after some time. Of course a nice supplement is reading openingbooks. In that domain Quality Chess played a major role by improving the overall standard of openingbooks compared to a decade ago. Often the quality is so good that you can be considered an expert after reading the openingbook on the condition you are sufficiently motivated and concentrated. An example of a success-story was described in my article an expanded repertoire for black. Obviously ambitions play an important role too.

A lot of people are surprised when I tell them that I haven't bought any openingbooks in decades which doesn't mean that I have no ambitions anymore. I analyze my games thoroughly with the help of engines and summarize those analysis by comments and annotations. Nonetheless I admit that only since a few years I really make a serious effort analyzing the openings methodically. Today I have developed my own methods allowing a much profounder analysis of the openings. I see recently already quite some progress not only related to mistakes but also in creating surprises for my opponents. This method seems to me something interesting to elaborate upon in this article.

If I would be asked to describe my method in 1 sentence then I would tell them that I analyze 100 mastergames of 1 opening with my best engines and complement it with analysis of correspondence-games, engine-games and games I played online with the same line. Some explanation about what I consider mastergames is probably necessary to get a better understanding.

I use as filter that at least one of both colors must have + 2300 elo. I expect some grandmasters find this filter too weak but I often see an interesting opening-idea of a player rated just above 2300 elo. Besides I also get a better picture of what players of 2300 would normally play in that position and 2300 players are an important segment of my regular opponents. On the other hand using a weaker filter would deteriorate enormously the return. I am satisfied with my choice but sometimes I do miss an interesting old mastergame (when ratings didn't exist yet) even if only for the historical background.

A second limitation is to cut off the analysis of the opening at about 100 mastergames. Time simply doesn't permit me to go broader. To process 100 mastergames can easily take a week and each year I want to do dozens of such projects. I select the 100 mastergames counting backwards from the last position popping up simultaneously in my game and a mastergame. An example will probably clarify a lot. At move 28 I played a novelty in my game against Karsten Verhasselt see article mistakes but I already start the analysis of the opening at blacks 14th move.

So creating an openingbook is not only handy for a preparation but also to study openings. I do have to admit that it took me a lot longer to create such openingbook than a few years ago as explained in my article green moves. I don't know if this is related to the complexity of the megadatabase 2016 but this time it took 3 full days to build the openingbook. Fortunately I just had to wait for the result as otherwise I surely gave up. The gain in time with the openingbook is enormous. The countless searches during the study are executed instantaneously and you get as bonus an exact overview of which moves are the most interesting ones to analyze deeper.

This brings us to the 3rd filter I use in my openinganalysis. An idea will be ignored if every mastergame scored badly (definitely lost games). I am aware that this sometimes means I miss a good idea but the gain of time largely compensates. By cutting smartly the tree of variations I can optimize the quality and work. A recent example from my practice shows well how this works. We zoom at move 16 of my game against Hendrik Ponnet, played in the Belgium interclub a couple of months ago. I try to find an improvement as I wasn't satisfied about the resulting position out of the opening.

Once the mastergames are processed, I will also analyse correspondence games played with the same opening which are often very valuable. A bit less relevant are games played by engines but as their current level is so strong you can't ignore them anymore as I explained in my article computers achieve autonomy. Finally I also have a look at my own online games. Scientifically they are not important but they have often a practical value to know which human errors occur often. I try to avoid my own errors while I learn the sometimes difficult engine refutations of the mistakes of my opponents.

I admit that despite the shortcuts which I use, a project is not something which most players will enjoy. Besides you don't need such analysis at all to play at the level I do (2300 elo). It is neither very practical as the number of projects is limited so big gaps remain in my repertoire. My motive is to analyze with a scientific approach. A nice bonus is to have some fun with the mistakes from recently published openingbooks (e.g Lars Schandorff) or new correspondencegames.

Brabo

If I would be asked to describe my method in 1 sentence then I would tell them that I analyze 100 mastergames of 1 opening with my best engines and complement it with analysis of correspondence-games, engine-games and games I played online with the same line. Some explanation about what I consider mastergames is probably necessary to get a better understanding.

I use as filter that at least one of both colors must have + 2300 elo. I expect some grandmasters find this filter too weak but I often see an interesting opening-idea of a player rated just above 2300 elo. Besides I also get a better picture of what players of 2300 would normally play in that position and 2300 players are an important segment of my regular opponents. On the other hand using a weaker filter would deteriorate enormously the return. I am satisfied with my choice but sometimes I do miss an interesting old mastergame (when ratings didn't exist yet) even if only for the historical background.

A second limitation is to cut off the analysis of the opening at about 100 mastergames. Time simply doesn't permit me to go broader. To process 100 mastergames can easily take a week and each year I want to do dozens of such projects. I select the 100 mastergames counting backwards from the last position popping up simultaneously in my game and a mastergame. An example will probably clarify a lot. At move 28 I played a novelty in my game against Karsten Verhasselt see article mistakes but I already start the analysis of the opening at blacks 14th move.

100 mastergames |

This brings us to the 3rd filter I use in my openinganalysis. An idea will be ignored if every mastergame scored badly (definitely lost games). I am aware that this sometimes means I miss a good idea but the gain of time largely compensates. By cutting smartly the tree of variations I can optimize the quality and work. A recent example from my practice shows well how this works. We zoom at move 16 of my game against Hendrik Ponnet, played in the Belgium interclub a couple of months ago. I try to find an improvement as I wasn't satisfied about the resulting position out of the opening.

[Event "To analyze an opening"] [Date "2015"] [Round "?"] [White "?"] [Black "?"] [Result "*"] [ECO "B45"] [PlyCount "43"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Qc7 9. f4 Qb6 10. c4 Bb4 11. Ke2 f5 12. Nf2 Ba6 13. Kf3 Ne7 14. Be3 Bc5 15. Bxc5 Qxc5 {(In the megadatabase of 2016 there are 118 games in which 1 of both colors has at least 2300 elo.)} 16. Qd6 {(In my game against Hendrik Ponnet I did not know the theory and deviated from the mainline with b3. After the game I was not satisfied about the the opening and made a serious analysis of the much more popular Qd6 which scores rather well in practice for white.)} Qb6 17. b3 (17. b4 c5 $1 {(In 2011 Hristo Velchev, 2320 elo played Nc8 and lost.)} 18. Rd1 Bb7 19. Kg3 cxb4 20. Qxd7 Kf7 21. c5 Qc6 22. Qxc6 Bxc6 $11 {[%eval 0,34]}) (17. Rd1 Qxb2 $1 {(In 2002 Boris Savchenko 2313 elo met Rd8 on the board and won. This fate was repeated in 2006 by Admah Fawzi Samhouri 2336 elo.)} 18. Rd2 Qb8 19. Qxd7 Kf7 20. c5 Bxf1 21. Rxf1 Qb4 22. Rd6 Qc4 $11 {[%eval 0,34]}) 17... Bb7 18. Rd1 c5 19. Ke3 (19. Kg3 Qxd6 20. exd6 (20. Rxd6 g5 21. fxg5 h6 $1 {(In 2009 Zhanibek Amanov, 2413 elo met Ng6 after which he won rapidly.} 22. h4 hxg5 23. h5 O-O-O 24. Rd2 f4 25. Kg4 Rdf8 $15 { [%eval -54,32]}) 20... Ng8 21. Be2 (21. Nd3 Rc8 22. Be2 Nf6 $1 {(In 2009 Marijan Petrov, 2477 elo played Nh6 and lost.)} 23. Kf2 a5 24. Rhg1 Be4 25. Ne5 O-O 26. Ke3 a4 $11 {[%eval 0,34]}) 21... Nf6 22. Bf3 Bxf3 23. Kxf3 a5 24. Nd3 Ne4 $11 {[%eval 0,34]}) 19... Qxd6 20. exd6 (20. Rxd6 g5 21. fxg5 f4 22. Kd2 Ng6 23. Nd3 Rc8 24. Be2 (24. h4 Ke7 25. h5 Nxe5 26. Nxe5 Kxd6 27. Nf7 Ke7 28. Nxh8 Rxh8 29. Rh4 e5 $15 {[%eval -39,35]} 30. h6 (30. Rg4 d5 $1 {(In 2002 Veniamen Shtyrenkov, 2474 elo played d6 and lost.)} 31. Bd3 Bc8 32. Rh4 h6 33. g6 Rd8 34. cxd5 Rxd5 35. Kc3 Rd4 $15 {[%eval -45,35]}) 30... Kf7 31. g3 fxg3 32. Bd3 g2 33. Rg4 e4 34. Be2 Kg6 35. Ke3 $15 {[%eval -36,38]}) 24... Bxg2 25. Rg1 f3 $11 {[%eval -12,33]}) 20... Ng6 21. Nd3 Rc8 22. h4 $13 {(My best engine found in all the won games - of white in the Megadatabase 2016 with 16.Qd6 in which white or black had at least 2300 elo - an improvement for black so black achieves at least a comfortable position.)} *

Despite a score of + 60% in more than 100 games so a lot of won games by white, I could not find anything interesting. It doesn't happen often but sometimes I have to return back further. I won't stop stubbornly at the number 100. In such scenario it is absolutely necessary to summarize the analysis afterwards so it can be reused in a preparation of a game as can be seen below.
[Event "Interclub Deurne - KGSRL"] [Date "2015"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Ponnet, H."] [Result "*"] [ECO "B45"] [WhiteElo "2313"] [BlackElo "2280"] [PlyCount "33"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Ne4 Qc7 9. f4 Qb6 10. c4 Bb4 11. Ke2 f5 {(I found in the megadatabase 2016 more than 200 games with this position in which white and/or black has/have 2300 elo.)} 12. Nf2 {(I started here the analysis of the opening which lasted for almost a week. Starting earlier was not realistic as I still had many other projects.)} (12. exf6 Nxf6 13. Be3 (13. Nxf6 gxf6 14. a3 (14. Be3 Bc5 15. Bxc5 Qxc5 16. Rc1 (16. b3 d5 17. Qd2 O-O 18. Rc1 Qb6 19. Ke1 a5 20. Be2 Ba6 21. cxd5 cxd5 $11 {[%eval -17, 28]}) 16... e5 17. Qd2 d6 18. b4 Qb6 19. c5 dxc5 $11 {[%eval 6,30]}) 14... Be7 15. b4 c5 16. Kf2 O-O 17. Be3 Qc7 18. Bd3 Bb7 $11 {[%eval 0,30]}) (13. Nd6 Bxd6 14. Qxd6 Bb7 15. c5 (15. b3 Ne4 16. c5 (16. Qe5 c5 17. g3 O-O 18. Bg2 Rf5 19. Qb2 e5 20. g4 Rf7 21. f5 Nf6 $19 {[%eval -206,30]}) 16... Qb4 17. Bd2 Nxd2 18. Qxd2 Qxc5 19. Kd1 O-O 20. Rc1 Qb6 $17 {[%eval -149,30]}) 15... Qb4 16. Qe5 Ba6 17. Kf3 Bxf1 18. Rxf1 O-O $17 {[%eval -98,29]}) 13... Qd8 14. Nd6 Bxd6 15. Qxd6 Bb7 16. Rd1 (16. Kd1 c5 17. Bd3 (17. Bxc5 Ne4 18. Qe5 Nxc5 19. Qxc5 Rf8 20. Bd3 Rxf4 21. Qh5 g6 22. Qxh7 Qf6 $15 {[%eval -41,32]}) (17. Qxc5 Be4 18. Qd6 Rc8 19. Be2 (19. Bxa7 Rc6 20. Qb8 Rc8 21. Qd6 (21. Qe5 O-O 22. Be2 (22. Bd4 Bf5 23. Qe3 d6 24. Bb6 Qd7 25. b3 e5 26. Be2 Rfe8 27. Bf3 d5 $17 {[%eval -109,30]}) 22... Qe7 23. a3 d6 24. Qd4 Qb7 25. Qe3 Bf5 26. Bf3 Qxb2 $17 { [%eval -88,30]}) 21... Rc6 22. Qb8 Rc8 23. Qd6 Rc6 24. Qb8 Rc8 $11 {[%eval 0, 38]}) 19... Rc6 20. Qa3 d6 21. Ke1 O-O 22. Rg1 a6 $13 {[%eval 32,26]}) 17... Rc8 18. Bxc5 Be4 19. b4 Rc6 20. Qd4 Bxd3 21. Qxd3 Qc7 $11 {[%eval 0,31]}) (16. Kd3 c5 17. Kc2 Ne4 18. Qd1 O-O 19. Bd3 Qf6 20. Rc1 Rab8 21. Kb1 Bc6 $11 { [%eval -6,33]}) (16. Re1 Ne4 17. Qe5 c5 18. Qxg7 Rf8 19. Kd3 Qa5 20. Be2 Qxa2 21. Bh5 Kd8 $15 {[%eval -53,32]}) 16... Qa5 (16... Rc8 17. g4 (17. Rg1 c5 18. g4) 17... c5 18. Rg1 Qb6 19. g5 Qxd6 20. Rxd6 Ne4 21. Rd3 d5 22. Ra3 $14 { [%eval 43,29]}) 17. Bc5 (17. a3 Rf8 $11 {[%eval 20,27]}) 17... O-O-O 18. Kf3 Ne8 19. Qe5 d6 20. Bxd6 Qxe5 21. fxe5 Nxd6 22. exd6 c5 $14 {[%eval 41,30]}) ( 12. exf6 Nxf6 13. Be3 Qd8 14. Nd6 Bxd6 15. Qxd6 Bb7 16. Kd1 (16. Rd1 Rc8 17. Rg1 c5 18. g4 Qb6 19. g5 Qxd6 20. Rxd6 Ne4 21. Rd3 d5 $11 {[%eval 10,24]}) 16... c5 17. Qxc5 Be4 $11 {[%eval 13,22]}) (12. Ng3 Nc7 13. Be3 (13. a3 Be7 14. Qd3 (14. b4 a5 15. Be3 Qa6 16. b5 cxb5 17. cxb5 Qb7 18. Ke1 Nxb5 19. Qd3 Nc7 $17 {[%eval -115,30]}) 14... O-O 15. Ke1 Rd8 16. Be3 c5 17. b4 Bb7 18. Rb1 d5 $17 {[%eval -80,28]}) 13... Bc5 14. Bxc5 Qxc5 15. Kf3 (15. b3 O-O 16. Qd2 a5 17. Qe3 Qe7 18. Kf2 a4 19. Rd1 axb3 20. axb3 Qh4 $11 {[%eval 0,32]}) 15... Rb8 16. Qd2 a5 17. Rb1 O-O $11 {[%eval 0,27]}) 12... Ba6 13. Kf3 Ne7 14. Be3 (14. Qa4 g5 (14... c5 15. h4 Qc6 16. Qxc6 Nxc6 17. Be3 Nd4 18. Bxd4 cxd4 19. Rd1 h6 20. Rxd4 $11 {[%eval 20,32]}) 15. fxg5 Ng6 16. Nd3 c5 (16... Bxc4 17. Be3 Bd5 18. Kf2 c5 19. Qxb4 cxb4 20. Bxb6 axb6 21. h4 Rg8 22. Nxb4 $15 {[%eval -58,30]}) 17. a3 Ba5 18. b4 cxb4 19. axb4 Qd4 $11 {[%eval 26,32]}) (14. h4 Bc5 15. Qe1 (15. Qc2 Bd4 16. Nd3 (16. Rh3 Qc5 17. Kg3 Bxc4 18. Bxc4 Bxf2 19. Qxf2 Qxc4 20. Kh2 Nd5 21. b3 Qb4 $17 {[%eval -91,31]}) 16... O-O 17. Kg3 c5 18. Rh3 d5 19. exd6 Qxd6 20. Kh2 Nc6 $17 {[%eval -91,28]}) 15... Bd4 16. Rb1 c5 17. Be3 O-O 18. Bxd4 cxd4 19. Kg3 Rac8 $15 {[%eval -44,29]}) (14. Qa4 c5 (14... g5 15. Nd3 (15. fxg5 Ng6 16. Nd3 Bxc4 17. Be3 c5 18. Nxb4 Qxb4 19. Qxb4 cxb4 20. Kg3 Bd5 $15 {[%eval -37,22]}) 15... Bxc4 16. Qxb4 Bxd3 17. Qxb6 Be4 18. Kf2 axb6 19. fxg5 Ng6 20. Be2 $17 {[%eval -113,21]}) 15. a3 (15. h4 Qc6 16. Qxc6 Nxc6 17. Be3 Nd4 18. Bxd4 cxd4 19. Rd1 h6 20. Rxd4 Bc5 $11 {[%eval 25,25]}) 15... Bb7 16. Kg3 Ba5 17. h4 Qc7 18. Be3 Bb6 19. Qd1 a5 $11 {[%eval 13,21]}) 14... Bc5 15. Bxc5 Qxc5 16. b3 (16. Qd6 Qb6 (16... Qxd6 17. exd6 Ng8 (17... Ng6 18. c5 Bxf1 19. Rhxf1 Kf7 (19... Rb8 20. Nd3 Kf7 21. Ke3 h5 22. Kd4 Kf6 23. Kc3 e5 24. fxe5 Nxe5 25. Nxe5 $14 {[%eval 33,31]}) 20. Nd3 Kf6 21. Rae1 a5 22. b3 Rae8 23. Rg1 $14 {[%eval 42,33]}) 18. Ke3 (18. b3 c5 19. Be2 (19. Nd3 Bb7 20. Ke3 Rc8 21. Rd1 Be4 22. Ne5 Nh6 23. Be2 Nf7 24. h4 a5 $11 {[%eval 0,33]}) 19... Bb7 20. Ke3 Rc8 21. Rad1 a5 22. Rhg1 Nh6 23. Bf3 Bxf3 $11 {[%eval 8,32]}) (18. Rc1 c5 19. Ke3 Nf6 20. Nd3 Rc8 21. Be2 Bb7 22. Ne5 Be4 23. Rhg1 Rb8 $11 { [%eval 6,31]}) (18. Bd3 c5 19. Rhg1 Rb8 20. g4 g6 21. Rae1 Kd8 22. Re5 Rxb2 23. Rxc5 Rb6 $11 {[%eval 15,30]}) (18. b4 Nf6 19. Be2 h6 20. Ke3 g5 21. g3 O-O 22. Rhc1 Rab8 23. Rab1 Ne8 $16 {[%eval 73,27]}) (18. Be2) (18. c5) (18. g4) 18... c5 19. Rg1 Bb7 20. Rd1 Nh6 21. Be2 Nf7 22. Nd3 $11 {[%eval 27,30]}) (16... Qa5 17. Be2 (17. h4 Rd8 18. Qa3 Qxa3 19. bxa3 c5 20. Rc1 Nc6 21. Be2 Ke7 22. Nd3 Rc8 $11 {[%eval 0,34]}) 17... g5 18. Rhd1 Rd8 19. g3 (19. b3 g4 20. Kg3 Qb6 21. Qd4 c5 22. Qe3 Bb7 23. Nd3 Qc6 24. Bf1 Rc8 $11 {[%eval 19,31]}) 19... h5 20. fxg5 h4 21. g4 Rf8 $11 {[%eval 14,29]}) 17. b3 (17. b4 c5 18. Rd1 Bb7 19. Kg3 cxb4 20. Qxd7 Kf7 21. c5 Qc6 22. Qxc6 Bxc6 $11 {[%eval 0,34]}) (17. Rd1 Qxb2 18. Rd2 Qb8 19. Qxd7 Kf7 20. c5 Bxf1 21. Rxf1 Qb4 22. Rd6 Qc4 $11 { [%eval 0,34]}) 17... Bb7 18. Rd1 c5 19. Ke3 (19. Kg3 Qxd6 20. exd6 (20. Rxd6 g5 21. fxg5 h6 22. h4 hxg5 23. h5 O-O-O 24. Rd2 f4 25. Kg4 Rdf8 $15 {[%eval -54,32]}) 20... Ng8 21. Be2 (21. Nd3 Rc8 22. Be2 Nf6 23. Kf2 a5 24. Rhg1 Be4 25. Ne5 O-O 26. Ke3 a4 $11 {[%eval 0,34]}) 21... Nf6 22. Bf3 Bxf3 23. Kxf3 a5 24. Nd3 Ne4 $11 {[%eval 0,34]}) 19... Qxd6 20. exd6 (20. Rxd6 g5 21. fxg5 f4 22. Kd2 Ng6 23. Nd3 Rc8 24. Be2 (24. h4 Ke7 25. h5 Nxe5 26. Nxe5 Kxd6 27. Nf7 Ke7 28. Nxh8 Rxh8 29. Rh4 e5 $15 {[%eval -39,35]} 30. h6 (30. Rg4 d5 31. Bd3 Bc8 32. Rh4 h6 33. g6 Rd8 34. cxd5 Rxd5 35. Kc3 Rd4 $15 {[%eval -45,35]}) 30... Kf7 31. g3 fxg3 32. Bd3 g2 33. Rg4 e4 34. Be2 Kg6 35. Ke3 $15 {[%eval -36,38]}) 24... Bxg2 25. Rg1 f3 $11 {[%eval -12,33]}) 20... Ng6 21. Nd3 (21. h4 e5 22. Nd3 Nxf4 23. Nxe5 Ne6 24. Rg1 O-O 25. Nxd7 Rfe8 26. Kf2 Rad8 $11 {[%eval 11,31] }) 21... Rc8 22. h4) 16... Bb7 (16... Qb6 17. Qd6 Bb7 (17... c5 18. Kg3 Bb7 19. Be2 Kf7 (19... Rd8 20. Rhd1 Rg8 (20... Nc8 21. Qxb6 axb6 22. a4 Rg8 (22... d6 23. a5 dxe5 (23... bxa5 24. Rxa5 O-O 25. h4 dxe5 26. fxe5 Rxd1 27. Bxd1 f4 28. Kh3 f3 29. g4 $18 {[%eval 171,34]}) 24. fxe5 Rxd1 25. Nxd1 Rf8 26. Nc3 Rf7 27. axb6 Nxb6 28. Ra5 $16 {[%eval 153,33]}) 23. h4 h6 24. a5 bxa5 25. Nd3 g5 26. Bh5 $16 {[%eval 104,30]}) 21. Nd3 Rc8 22. Ne1 Rc7 23. h4 Be4 24. Kf2 Qb7 25. Bh5 $14 {[%eval 54,26]}) 20. Rad1 Rhd8 21. Bh5 g6 22. Bf3 Bxf3 23. gxf3 $11 { [%eval 10,30]}) 18. Rd1 c5 19. Ke3 Qxd6 (19... Kf7 20. Qxb6 axb6 21. Rxd7 Bc6 22. Rd2 g5 23. Nh3 h6 24. fxg5 Ng6 25. gxh6 $11 {[%eval 0,32]} Nxe5 (25... Rxh6 26. Ng5 Ke7 27. Nxe6 Nxe5 28. Nc7 Rg8 29. h4 Ng4 30. Ke2 Nf6 31. Rh2 $14 { [%eval 38,32]}) 26. Be2 Rag8 27. Nf4 Ke7 28. Bf3 Nxf3 29. gxf3 Rxh6 30. Nd3 Rh3 $11 {[%eval 0,36]}) (19... Rd8 20. Be2 Nc8 21. Qxb6 axb6 22. a4 Rg8 23. Rhg1 Ne7 24. g3 Ra8 25. Rd2 $14 {[%eval 36,30]}) 20. exd6 Ng6 21. Nd3 Rc8 22. h4 $11 {[%eval 12,33]}) 17. Qd2 $146 {(The first move of which I do not find any games in the databases. Eventually I won the game in 35 moves but that had nothing to do with the opening.)} (17. Qd6 Qxd6 18. exd6 c5 19. Ke3 Ng6 20. Nd3 Rc8 21. h4 (21. Rg1 Be4 22. Ne5 Nxe5 23. fxe5 g5 24. g4 h6 25. Be2 Kf7 26. b4 cxb4 $11 {[%eval 26,29]}) 21... h5 22. Be2 Be4 $13 {[%eval 32,36]}) *

I do take care that I store the detailed analysis in a separate database so when I want to expand or refresh the analysis that I can continue where I left off earlier. It doesn't make sense to analyze all the mastergames of an opening when you already did 95% of it 1 year ago. If that happens I will just analyze the 5% new games. Old analysis of 10 years ago always have to be redone but at that time I didn't make the analysis so detailed as I do today.Once the mastergames are processed, I will also analyse correspondence games played with the same opening which are often very valuable. A bit less relevant are games played by engines but as their current level is so strong you can't ignore them anymore as I explained in my article computers achieve autonomy. Finally I also have a look at my own online games. Scientifically they are not important but they have often a practical value to know which human errors occur often. I try to avoid my own errors while I learn the sometimes difficult engine refutations of the mistakes of my opponents.

I admit that despite the shortcuts which I use, a project is not something which most players will enjoy. Besides you don't need such analysis at all to play at the level I do (2300 elo). It is neither very practical as the number of projects is limited so big gaps remain in my repertoire. My motive is to analyze with a scientific approach. A nice bonus is to have some fun with the mistakes from recently published openingbooks (e.g Lars Schandorff) or new correspondencegames.

Brabo