New In Chess used to offer to send anyone who was interested a free copy of their latest issue. Not sure if they still do that, but if they do, it would give you a sense of what the quality is like. I can't think of any other publications that publishes such lengthy and detailed annotations by top grandmasters (other than Informant). The other places you could try are ICC's Chess.FM or Chessbase Magazine/Playchess Radio, but if you are unhappy with New In Chess, I doubt you'll like them much either.
Convert Mega2009 to PGN?
Sort:
rigamagician wrote:
New In Chess used to offer to send anyone who was interested a free copy of their latest issue. Not sure if they still do that, but if they do, it would give you a sense of what the quality is like. I can't think of any other publications that publishes such lengthy and detailed annotations by top grandmasters (other than Informant). The other places you could try are ICC's Chess.FM or Chessbase Magazine/Playchess Radio, but if you are unhappy with New In Chess, I doubt you'll like them much either.
My problem with the informant is that the analysis sometimes skips alternatives, that is it is not exhaustive, sometimes the analyst just gives e.g. 13. ..Ne7!? without saying something more. Now to a GM this ..Ne7!? may be enough to make a whole game preparation but I need something more than that.
I will check myself NIC issues to have personal opinion (as I said from the start the comments on NIC have been passed to me by others), how is the chessbase magazine?
What I don't want is to spend my money inefficiently, I would be very disappointed to subscribe somewhere and get a Rybka dump. It may sound as a weird customer attitude but that's what I do with everything, be it software, restaurants, clothes or houses. I can understand that quality may be expensive and I am happy to pay for that, what I hate is spending money for something that turns out to not worth its price. TLDR I seek "value for money" :)
Gonnosuke wrote:
For openings the King's Gambit they're already the definitive source of information.
I thought there was a little known invitation-only East European web site where they have published the definitive analysis on the King's Gambit. Unfortunately, we never found out what site this was. 
Gonnosuke wrote:
pentagram wrote:
To add on top of that, I am pretty disappointed by informant's laconic annotations, I wonder what sort of publication is best for some good *human* analysis in recent games (not a personal opinion but I have heard people complaining that nowadays NIC is also an engine dump). If you have any suggestions I'm all ears.
Chesspub is the answer you're looking for. In the future, sites like Chesspub will be the primary source of opening information. Informant and NIC are out of date before the ink is dry and sites like Chesspub are both far more topical and far more democratic. By democratic I mean that they're willing to consider analysis from all sources, not just titled players. The analysis is judged based on the merits of the analysis not on the title (or lack thereof) of the person who authored it. The GM's who act as gatekeepers are also extremely accessible. If you have a question, they're an email away and for the most part they're quite responsive. Well worth the money in my opinion.
For openings the King's Gambit they're already the definitive source of information.
That sounds interesting, can I ask you how does it do with regard to the following:
- breadth of coverage, e.g. if an interesting line appears in NIC will it be discussed in chesspub?
- do they analyse recent game novelties? e.g. would it be a good place to discuss e.g. the latest Morozevich-Kramnik game?
If I have understood chesspub organization correctly, there are the forums & the paid sections. Do GMs reply only if you have sunscribed to the corresponding paid section?
Only thing I am not 100% fond of is that payed sections in chesspubliishing.com are organized in a way that you may have to subscribe to many, even if you are interested in only a 10% of their content, e.g. as a White player the KID section is useful only if your pet line is being discussed.
ps: I no longer play KG as I decided to try and learn 1.d4 but who knows :) romance may not be dead ;)
New In Chess has always struck me as the most readable and human of the top quality magazines. The GMs are chatty, and describe the psychology and ideas behind their approach. Perhaps game collection books offer more detailed annotations, but I think it would be hard to find a better magazine for high quality annotations by top SuperGMs.
Some of the annotators for Chessbase Magazine are major engine heads, but I think it depends a lot on the GM doing the annotating. There tend to be a lot of lower level GMs, especially from Germany, and I find myself disagreeing with a lot of their assessments, but Chessbase does put a lot of work into making the issues interesting with little video interviews with Anand or whoever, and I usually find something of interest in each issue.
Chesspublishing certainly has a good reputation in the field of opening preparation, but I confess to being a bit of a star-hound, and kind of prefer to read annotations by SuperGMs like Morozevich or Shirov over doubtless very sturdy work by the likes of Chris Ward or Gary Lane.
rigamagician wrote:
New In Chess has always struck me as the most readable and human of the top quality magazines. The GMs are chatty, and describe the psychology and ideas behind their approach. Perhaps game collection books offer more detailed annotations, but I think it would be hard to find a better magazine for high quality annotations by top SuperGMs.
Some of the annotators for Chessbase Magazine are major engine heads, but I think it depends a lot on the GM doing the annotating. There tend to be a lot of lower level GMs, especially from Germany, and I find myself disagreeing with a lot of the assessments, but Chessbase does put a lot of work into making the issues interesting with little video interviews with Anand or whoever, and I usually find something of interest in each issue.
That sounds like a good reason to get NIC. I remember it like that, but again, no-one was relying on engines then, they were very weak so people switched off their brain & switched on Fritz allot less ;) I'm happy to hear it still provides real GM analysis.
Gonnosuke wrote:
pentagram wrote:
To add on top of that, I am pretty disappointed by informant's laconic annotations, I wonder what sort of publication is best for some good *human* analysis in recent games (not a personal opinion but I have heard people complaining that nowadays NIC is also an engine dump). If you have any suggestions I'm all ears.
Chesspub is the answer you're looking for. In the future, sites like Chesspub will be the primary source of opening information. Informant and NIC are out of date before the ink is dry and sites like Chesspub are both far more topical and far more democratic. By democratic I mean that they're willing to consider analysis from all sources, not just titled players. The analysis is judged based on the merits of the analysis not on the title (or lack thereof) of the person who authored it. The GM's who act as gatekeepers are also extremely accessible. If you have a question, they're an email away and for the most part they're quite responsive. Well worth the money in my opinion.
For openings the King's Gambit they're already the definitive source of information.
I suppose you are referring to http://www.chesspub.com, right? (sorry, I am new to the chess databases world). They don't have an "about" on their website. That is just a forum specialized in chess openings, right? 
http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/
is the site for their paid content. There is a link at the top of the chesspub forum.
Gonnosuke wrote:
Maybe I'm too cynical but the way I see it is that Super GM's have very little reason to disclose their best analysis. Journeymen GM's, the kind that Chesspub employs, they don't make their living OTB -- they pay the rent by writing or teaching so they have little reason to hold back on their analysis. For these "normal" GM's, it's much more important to develop a reputation for coherent analysis as this will likely increase the kind of ancillary opportunities that they rely on to pay the bills.
Shirov in particular likes to play his cards pretty close to his chest especially in the opening, although even he can enthuse when he thinks he's found a good idea. Morozevich is a bit more forthcoming. Kasparov used to be pretty good about saying what was on his mind. Kramnik is pretty much a stick in the mud. You can tell Anand is trying. Anyway, you learn a lot about a GM by looking at what he chooses to share or not share as the case may be.
I was referring to the Chess Analysis Project mainly as a huge source of PGN games. I agree that the assessments are pretty subjective to say the least. If you don't like Informant and New In Chess, it's hard to make constructive suggestions.
I don't like informant, I am not a subscriber to NIC, I remember it being very good when reading it in the past (my coach was a subscriber and he was giving me issues (Ybooks) for a read a long time ago. What I have heard about NIC now is only from friends comments/random comments on the internet.