Blitz Death Match 26: GM Krush vs GM Kosintseva is LIVE! Hosted by IM Rensch & GM Hess! Click here to watch!
Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Expert/Master Notation


  • 8 months ago · Quote · #1

    heister

    I started a thread this past summer to analyze players games who are rated between 1000-2000.  I've had several experts post on that thead, so I thought I would start this one for that purpose.  This thread is dedicated to analysis of expert/master level play.  If you are an expert, feel free to post your game here.  Otherwise, I will be choosing historical or current master level chess games to notate.   

    If you are a master and would like to showcase a game, feel free.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #2

    Dude_3

    Im a gm. Analyse my games.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #3

    heister

     
    Any requests for games are welcome!
  • 8 months ago · Quote · #4

    SmyslovFan

    Did you author the comments in the Pillsbury-Lasker game, or did someone else? If it was someone else, you should give credit where due.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #5

    heister

    I don't plan to add any bibliography on where I research the history behind the games.  The comments on the moves are always my own, and I will never copy any text in that regard.  This may be more apparent when I do a game from a current tournament/master.  Thx.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #6

    SmyslovFan

    Ok, thanks for clarifying. As you probably know, there are quite a few threads here with games that are just lifted off other sites.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #7

    Somebodysson

    thread title should be changed to "annotation". I came here looking for a new kind of move notation that masters use Surprised

    still, nice that smyslovfan is here. Haven't seen you for awhile. 

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #8

    akafett

    Alright, Someone explain to me 2...e6. It seems that black should have played 2...c6 so that he would have two center pawns if exchange took place.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #9

    SmyslovFan

    Akafett, there are only two ways to defend the d5 pawn without losing tempi, 2....c6 and 2...e6. (2....Nf6?! loses tempi to 3.exd5 Nxd5 4.e4, for example)

    2...c6 does leave the diagonal open for the light-squared Bishop, but if white does not take on d5 (and in general, he should maintain the tension), then 2...e6 forms the classical method of defense.  Black can solve the problem of his bad light-squared Bishop by threatening to develop it to b7 or e6. 

    Here's an example:



  • 8 months ago · Quote · #10

    blueemu

    I've posted this one before, but it's worth another look. A very tense, cut-and-thrust game in which my opponent's final counter-attack, a wide turning movement all the way around my position, just fails to break through to my King.



  • 8 months ago · Quote · #11

    heister

    The names did not get entered correctly.  The game is Lipnitzky vs Smyslov in Moscow 1951. 

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #12

    konhidras

    Dude_3 wrote:

    Im a gm. Analyse my games.

    A grand "Kung Fu" master eh ?

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #13

    heister

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #14

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    Here's one from Capablanca I think you'd like:


    Maybe late but congratz on Nakamura drawing Carlsen!  Normally I don't care for draws but some, especially those by Lasker, are worth looking at.  Just 3 examples off the top of my head come to mind (four now that I've clicked on a random Bird game):

    The database won't show the Lasker-Napier game for some reason but here's a good one wth Nimzowitsch:

    Never again will those who look at these games stereotype draws as dull!



  • 2 months ago · Quote · #15

    heister

    Yeah, Lasker is probably my second favorite player to study.  I really like Rubenstein's games :D.  I should probably do one of those next.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #16

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    Yeah I like Rubenstein too.  Considering how narrowly Lasker avoided losing the title to Schlechter Rubsenstein probably would have won a match, but WW1 happened so they couldn't reasonably get a match going. 

    I find it hard to believe that Rubenstein was the first to decide his openings based on the endgame just because it's so natural to do so (opening phases into a middlegame, which phases into a strategic endgame and finally into a theoretical endgame so there's a logical connect between opening and ending) and Chess is quite an old game.  He was still quite profficient in both areas however. 


Back to Top

Post your reply: