Chess Forum
podcaststyle.com << online chess - < chess - chess > - chess online >>
| From | Message | ||||||||
| Posted by taufiq podcaststyle.com 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 podcaststyle.com 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 podcaststyle.com 5/31/2008 13:05:11 Play online chess | Message: ——— Interview with Magnus Carlsen — The world's best chess player on modelling for G-Star Raw, psychological ploys, and why he's not big on Christmas. Q: Hello Magnus ... MC: Hello Small Talk. Q: How does it feel to be back for the London Chess Classic? MC: It feels good. Last year's tournament was really enjoyable and very successful for me too. Q: The Russian world champion Mikhail Botvinnik used to get training partners to deliberately blow smoke in his face to prepare for opponents who may try to unsettle him. Is there anything you do to prepare for psychological tricks or gamesmanship? MC: Thankfully, one cannot smoke at the board now so I don't have to worry about that. I try to focus on the game rather than ... Posted by marinvukusic | podcaststyle.com 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. ——— McShane Retains Lead at London Classic; Anand Beats Carlsen — Luke McShane, who won his first two games, did not win in Round 3 of the London Chess Classic on Friday. But he managed to draw against Vladimir Kramnik of Russia, the former world chess champion, and thus remained in the lead. After three of the four games in each of the first two rounds ended decisively, Friday was relatively quiet, with three games ending in draws. The exception was a win by Viswanathan Anand of India, the world chess champion, over Magnus Carlsen of Norway. It was the second loss for Carlsen, who actually had an advantage early in the game before making two bad moves that allowed Anand to shatter his kingside pawns and then infiltrate with his queen and rook. Carlsen could ... Posted by marinvukusic | podcaststyle.com 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. ——— Surprising Leader at London Chess Classic — The torrid pace continued at the London Chess Classic on Thursday as three of the four games again ended decisively. Luke McShane of England, who had pulled off a big upset by beating Magnus Carlsen of Norway in Round 1, won again in Round 2, beating Nigel Short, another Englishman. It was Short’s second loss. Carlsen bounced back by upending Michael Adams, one of the four English chess players. Hikaru Nakamura of the United States, who had managed to draw a long game against the world chess champion Viswanathan Anand of India in Round 1, had Black for the second game in a row. It was also his 23rd birthday. His opponent, Vladimir Kramnik of Russia, the former world chess champion, ended up ... Posted by ccmcacollister | podcaststyle.com 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 ——— Exciting and Surprising Start to the London Chess Classic — If every round of the London Chess Classic is like the first round, then it is going to be a very exciting tournament. The chess tournament began Wednesday and three of the four games ended decisively. The most stunning result was the victory of the English grandmaster Luke McShane over Magnus Carlsen of Norway. Carlsen played some speculative moves and was punished brilliantly by McShane. The other two wins were also quite exciting. Michael Adams, one of the four English chess players, checkmated his countryman David Howell in 27 moves with a scintillating attack, while Vladimir Kramnik of Russia overwhelmed Nigel Short, the other English player, with a central pawn break that eventually led to ... Posted by ionadowman | podcaststyle.com 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. ——— Women’s World Chess Championship Begins With Some Upsets — The first round of the Women’s World Chess Championship, which is being held in Hatay, Turkey, ended Monday, and a few of the higher-ranked chess players are already on their way home. The biggest upset was the victory of Betul Cemre Yildiz of Turkey over Pia Cramling of Sweden. Cramling was a semifinalist at the 2008 championship and is ranked No. 9 in the world among women. The manner in which she lost was also surprising as she simply used up all her time in the second game of her match before she could make her 40th move in a completely equal and uncomplicated position. Other upset victims included Lilit Mkrtchian of Armenia, who lost tie-breaker games Monday to ... |