Chess Forum
mailcafe.net << online chess - < chess - chess > - chess online >>
| From | Message | ||||||||
| Posted by taufiq mailcafe.net 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 mailcafe.net 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 mailcafe.net 5/31/2008 13:05:11 Play online chess | Message: ——— Making the Case for, and Against, Chess as an Olympic Sport — Could chess be an Olympic sport? Such an idea may seem absurd to some people, but the World Chess Federation has been lobbying the International Olympic Committee for years to include chess in the Games. As part of its efforts, the federation even instituted drug testing to bring chess into compliance with the committee’s rules. (Players have grumbled about this, pointing out that aside from caffeine, there are no drugs that can plausibly help them play better.) In making a case for chess, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, the president of the federation, has said that curling is essentially “chess on ice.” The Olympic committee has granted the federation status as a Recognized International Sports Federation, but ... Posted by marinvukusic | mailcafe.net 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. ——— On Chess: Game is brainy mix of theory, practice — The frequent emphasis on rote learning is decried by critics of formal education. Learning is often reduced to reproducible sound bites amenable to multiple-choice testing. The result can be a learned incapacity in making complex decisions demanding fluid thinking and purposeful action. We often hear from those who use chess as an educational tool that “Chess makes kids smarter.” But why? Chess, like other games, is a testing ground that combines theory and action. It is no accident that the best performers in sports are often effective men and women who achieve new successes when their athletic careers are over. Playing chess involves a continuous mental process of applying and modifying concepts to ... Posted by marinvukusic | mailcafe.net 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. ——— Vlad Kramnik sweeps past Englishmen en route to winning London Chess Classic — Beating up the Brits was the key for Russia's Vlad Kramnik, who won this week's London Chess Classic narrowly from the US No1 Hikaru Nakamura and the world No1 Magnus Carlsen. Kramnik made a clean sweep of the four Englishmen. His key game was in the penultimate round against Luke McShane who till then was a contender for the €50,000 first prize and still finished a strong €15,000 richer fourth. Carlsen was only third, yet the combined elite chess events at Moscow last month and London boosted the 21-year-old Norwegian's status as top dog, second only to the retired Garry Kasparov on the all-time ratings. Carlsen was unbeaten in both chess tournaments, whereas Kramnik and ... Posted by ccmcacollister | mailcafe.net 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 ——— Second place finish for Nakamura in London — St. Louis resident Hikaru Nakamura captured second place in the recently finished London Chess Classic. This stellar result catapults Hikaru back in the top 10 after his less-than stellar performance in the Tal Memorial in Moscow, where he finished in last place. Another chess player, Vladimir Kramnik, had a similar turnaround. Kramnik finished next to last in Moscow, but he came back to win the London Chess Classic. Hikaru Nakamura secured second place with a sharp tactical victory over Michael Adams in the final round of the London Chess Classic. Adams is England's highest-rated chess player. The tournament in London had a fantastic format, and it featured a little twist in scoring as well. Typically, a win is ... Posted by ionadowman | mailcafe.net 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. ——— Chess: The lessons of Botvinnik — How Vladimir Kramnik employed the classical style learned at the famed school of Botvinnik to take the lead in London. The former world chess champion Vladimir Kramnik powered into the lead at the London Chess Classic with two late victories. How did he gain a big advantage in this game? RB: White's position looks solid, but with his last move, Howell threatens the a-pawn. Defending it with 1. b3 looks horrible – Black will sooner or later make the push …c5-c4 and White will have to be careful if he's to keep his queenside together. But do I have to defend the a-pawn? Whenever one of your rooks is standing on the same file as the enemy queen, even a semi-open file, you should always look for ... |