Chess Forum
goclub.org << online chess - < chess - chess > - chess online >>
| From | Message | ||||||||
| Posted by taufiq goclub.org 5/31/2008 04:23:41 Play online chess |  Subject: Annotated games.. How to improve ?Message: I'm trying to improve the quality of my annotated games.. But it's quiet hard to find out what people like about the annotations.. Is it the depth of your analysis, is it the commentary, perhaps your funny remarks ? Or something else ? Or a mix of everything ? Btw, it's very nice to read the annotations of other players ! Really helpfull to learn how other people are calculating and analysing their games and stuff ! | ||||||||
| Posted by bonsai goclub.org 5/31/2008 12:54:31 Play online chess | Message: Of course analysis should be correct (in part to do with depth), but who wants to see endless variations (okay, maybe if it's early on in an opening variation I also play, or if the variations are truly fascinating)? I usually am not just looking for "this variation is +- that variation is =" commentary, but some insights into why variations work or do not work. The funny bit of course is also entertaining at times... | ||||||||
| Posted by novagold goclub.org 5/31/2008 13:05:11 Play online chess | Message: ——— On Chess: Game wading into waves of change — Like so much in contemporary life, chess - like an onrushing river - is characterized by constant change. Bobby Fischer had the equivalent of a dozen or more doctorates in chess. He studied and assimilated - like no one else before him - what seemed at the time to be a massive classical chess heritage. Grandmasters today have access to a minimum database of more than 4 million games, far eclipsing the chess legacy that Fischer inherited - and that database is increasing at an accelerating rate. Setting up the pieces, playing through a game or games and reviewing relevant positions are painfully time-consuming. Fortunately, chess software and the computer screen speed ... Posted by marinvukusic | goclub.org 5/31/2008 13:15:00 Play online chess IMHOMessage: 1. The game itself should be of solid quality (not too many mistakes) and interesting. Games that are one-sided tend to be uninteresting (usually opponent makes gross mistakes and gets pummeled). 2. Annotation has to be correct. It lowers the score when commentators point out obvious mistakes in the annotation, for example when the annotator proclaims that normal development of the opponent is a "big mistake". Critical moments should be covered by a few important variations (not too much). Explanation of moves can be instructive. 3. Annotator should always refrain from insulting his opponent (whenever I see that happen I give the annotation 1 star). 4. The annotation should be objective. I find it annoying when the annotator proclaims that normal development of the opponent is a "big mistake". Additional comments: - I personally like to have some "learning points", which are basically reasons why I even bothered to annotate the game (it takes me a lot of time to do it so I am satisfied with the annotation). I habitually analyze all my OTB games and those that were the best ended up on GK as annotations. - I like to explain the plans and psychology behind some moves, especially in situations where several moves of almost equal could have been played. - It is interesting to note that sometimes comments can raise the quality and score of the annotation. - The simplest way is to check out annotation with 4 and 4,5 stars and see what they have in common besides what I have mentioned. ——— After Decades in Top Ranks, a Shot at the Title, Finally — Chess players usually reach their peak in their 20s, so how is it that the grandmaster Boris Gelfand is getting his first crack at becoming world chess champion when he is 43? Gelfand, whose Candidates Matches victory in May earned him the right to play Viswanathan Anand for the title next year, said he was encouraged by the example of Viktor Korchnoi. When he was in his late 40s, Korchnoi, now 80, played for the chess championship twice. “Korchnoi is kind of inspiration for me and for all of us,” Gelfand said in a recent telephone interview, quoting Korchnoi’s advice that “if you want to improve, you have to learn new things all the time.” Gelfand said he changed his opening repertory before ... Posted by marinvukusic | goclub.org 5/31/2008 13:22:02 Play online chess ClarificationMessage: Objective - I meant mostly verbal evaluation of moves/positions (stating your opinion) If a good move gets an "?" and then the annotator explains that the move is bad for incorrect reason, his annotation is BOTH incorrect and not objective. ——— Chennai make bid to host 2012 world title match — Chennai, India, has made a bid, backed by the Tamil Nadu state government, to host the 2012 Vishy Anand (India) verses Boris Gelfand (Israel) world title match. The world chess governing body Fide will now decide between Chennai and an earlier bid from Moscow. Magnus Carlsen, world No1 at 20, and Sergey Karjakin, No4 at 21, are exceptional for their age, yet they now face a challenge from two still younger chess grandmasters who are advancing fast up the rankings. Italy's Fabiano Caruana, 18, took first prize at New Delhi last month and is ranked in the top 20 GMs, while Anish Giri, 17, won the Dutch chess championship by a two-point margin. Giri is reaching his rating targets at a younger age than ... Posted by ccmcacollister | goclub.org 5/31/2008 19:45:20 Play online chess marinvukusic has mentioned items Message: *** Annotator explains his thought processes at some important point(s) of the game, especially if he made a mistake or was surprised by an opponent move. This can include speaking of his planning, position evaluation, aor opponents expected plan. *** Makes mention of moves/goals/ or plan, which are thematic to the particular opening being played. [for eg, the common attempt by WT to play for a c5 push vs the Mar del Plata King's Indian ... or the fight for control of e4 that happens in the Dory Defense, etc.] Bonus points for pointing out any plan alternatives to the one which was chosen in the game, or the ones typical to the position. *** That he DOES mention any moves overlooked during the game which would have won material for either player, or significantly altered the assessment or character of the position, especially if involving the Initiative or creation of any serious positional weakening, particularly if Permanent. If someone wins the game, but fails to point out where the opponent might have won his Queen (which I Have seen in the GK Annotated Games! :) , then the annotator will definitely go down a star or two. I feel that is too big a matter of integrity of the game notes, to completely bypass or gloss over, and a bit too self-aggrandizing. [On the other hand, if they catch the oversight & mention it in the notes, I do not down-grade them for having erred during the game. Imo errors are to be expected from players under 2700 ... ( and Grandmasters playing against computers :) ] *** I like to see an annotator point out the importance of specific matters of technique that occur during the game. Also if someone embarks upon a faulty plan or concept . And also the presence of any factors beyond the moves upon the board, which influence the game. This might be: Tournament Standing/Strategy, Time Pressure, or unsurmountable noise from the Oriental Stick-Dancing Class starting right next door to the tournament room at the Omaha Public Library, during the middle of the final round of play . . . Or the fact that the "Metro Tornado" Swiss tournament actually Had to be evacuated to my basement and finished by candle-light due to issuing of an unexpected Tornado-Warning & associated power outage~! *********************** So there are some more ideas, tho I feel like I'm still missing a lot. Oh yes, it is nice if one can mention any GM game(s) that the players are following. And some references to alternative "Book" moves aor home improvements/TN's , besides the game moves. And especially any very interesting looking lines/moves that were avoided as unclear during the game, that seem to have merit. *** }8-D ——— Bobby Fischer: How the king of chess lost his crown — By Garry Kasparov. Bobby Fischer was the chess world’s flawed genius. His mercurial brilliance was undisputed, but his fragile mental health led to poisonous and very public outbursts - especially after 9/11 - that prompted global revulsion. Garry Kasparov, himself world chess champion for 20 years, remembers with fondness and frustration the man he most wishes he had played: It would be impossible for me to write dispassionately about Bobby Fischer even if I were to try. I was born the year he achieved a perfect score at the US Chess Championship in 1963, 11 wins with no losses or draws. He was only 20 at that point but it had been obvious for years that he was destined to become ... Posted by ionadowman | goclub.org 6/01/2008 07:09:40 Play online chess All these ...Message: But maybe one might tend, then, to infer that the standard required is so high only someone with a rating of, say, 3000 ELO is really qualified to annotate a game. No, I exaggerate. I think ccmcacollister and marinvukusic are really describing ideals to aim for. No one, if he or she has something to say or to share about a game, or even wants to brag and tell a story, ought to be discouraged from annotating a game. Nor need the game be of high accuracy to be worth annotating or telling us about. I recall annotating a GK game a while back. It had quite a lot of mistakes by both players, but some fine moves as well, and some very interesting ideas and motifs emerged that were fun to explore. I thoroughly enjoyed playing through the game, following its twists of fortune, building to a climax, with the result in doubt until almost the end. A great story. I mentioned exploring some ideas and motifs. This is one of the reasons my comments on games feature variations, sometimes in considerable depth (tho' I don't go nuts about it). Often it takes specific moves to illustrate the idea. It's not a bad idea, too, when giving move details to be more explicit than you would consider necessary, to help a less experienced reader to follow the action. It needs to be borne in mind - something one is apt to forget - that what doesn't happen on the chessboard but could easily happen, is as much part of the game as what does happen. Both sides are continually making decisions, and it is the quality of those decisions that determines the result. ——— When not seeing is believing — This week Toronto is hosting the 2011 Canadian Open Chess Championship, and although I was not able to participate in the tournament, I had the unique good fortune to be there for the weekend to conduct a blindfold simultaneous exhibition. This is not the first time I have played multiple games of chess while blindfolded, but this one upped the ante. My usual blindfold limit is five boards simultaneously, and I've played with this set up a number of times. But this time I was pitted against six people, a feat I have only accomplished once - and that was more than 25 years ago. Adding to the challenge was the strength of the chess players. Normally, I recommend my opposition to be ... |