Review all games? Or only the ones with defeat?

I am asking this, because probably I am not doing correctly. I am very slowly trying to improve, and I have notice that an important part of chess, is to review past games. However I have only reviewed the ones I have been defeated, should I analyze the ones I have also won? If so, what should I look for? Thank you in advance for any kind of help.

You should review the ones the you won too.

Reviewing losses are more compelling as you want to know why you lost and should do differently. In a win the natural attitude can be, "I won, I don't want to do anything differently"

But if won because your opponent blundered 5 times and you only blundered 3 times that means you have 3 things you can learn to differently. Also if you are frequently making the same type of mistake but winning anyway because players at your level don't frequently catch that mistake and let you get away with it, you will internalize it as a "good move" and it will be a lot harder to unlearn that mistake later on. Finally, you can review your opponent's mistakes -- would you have found a better move or made the same mistake? An opportunity for learning.

Only review the games you win over and over again to feel good about yourself and only take quick glance at games you lose to see if your opponent was cheating , that’s what I do .......... lol

I wouldn't be too worried about what's "correct"...that's often just a matter of opinion (and how would anyone really know anyway?). The fact that you're reviewing your games is what's most important.

I used to analyze em all (even did it in book form!). But I'd say the most fruitful ones to analyze would be any tough struggle (whatever the outcome...and don't forget about your draws!).

Not reviewing won games makes you prone to repeat past mistakes. You may have won but you need to see what mistakes you made in order to understand them and avoid them as much as possible. Unless you won a game comprehensively where your opponent never had edge in the game, then that game doesn't need to be reviewed.

One doesn't review a game to know why he/she lost or won, one reviews a game to find what he/she did wrong/right, to answer questions that may have arisen during the game but he/she couldn't find an answer to, and potentially find out alternative ways of playing which would have been interesting. You can do all of this from both won and lost games.

So basically, you review in priority the games in which there was some part where you are unsure about something (either that you did, or was considering but rejected because you were unsure of the line...). Short answer: review them all until you get a feel for which games are the best use of your time for review.

@MrPushwood said in #4:
> I wouldn't be too worried about what's "correct"...that's often just a matter of opinion

It's not a matter of opinion at all. Chess is a game of perfect information. There are literally demonstrable, objectively superior moves in any given position. Hence why computers with strong calculating power trump humans all the time. That wouldn't be the case if it was all just opinion.

@Erisian said in #7:
> It's not a matter of opinion at all. Chess is a game of perfect information. There are literally demonstrable, objectively superior moves in any given position. Hence why computers with strong calculating power trump humans all the time. That wouldn't be the case if it was all just opinion.

i could be wrong, but I read it as Mr Pushwood saying there is no absolute correct answer to whether or not to review winning games or just losing game, not that individual positions don’t have a correct answer and the best move is a matter of opinion. Although in some positions there are multiple correct answers.

All ofc.

The difference between won and lost game is just a mouse-slip, or a moment in time-trouble when your opponent makes a terrible blunder. You win the game which was completely lost, thinking you did everything right.

Plus, there is always something to check at least in the opening variation, unless a big blunder is made early in the game.