Should aspiring chess players analyze all of their games? Or is time better spent analyzing particular games (like a match between two masters)?

In general, is it better to play more, and analyze a few of those games, or to play less, and analyze most of them, or even play a less, and still only analyze a very few selected games? What is the most professional attitude towards learning?
Should aspiring chess players analyze all of their games?


It all depends on the result of the game.

Every single game that you lost was because you made at least one mistake. If you don't correct your mistakes you will continue to lose to the same kind of mistakes. The only way you are going to stop making the same mistakes, same kind of mistakes is by analyzing your games, identifying what you are doing wrong and correcting it.

Analyzing the games you lost is the one constant of the life of a player who wants to improve.

Analyzing the games you won is nice for your ego but in general does little to make you a better player.

Analyzing the games you drew can be very useful for identifying the "one that got away". If you were winning, or thought you were winning, and the game ended in a draw then it is useful to find out where you went wrong. Either your judgement was wrong and it was always more or less even or you really were winning and you made a mistake that let him get away. This is often a problem in endgames.