Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #201

    Pikachulord6

    @jetfighter13: I haven't actually looked at all of your annotations, but I just wanted to make a bit of a point here. I personally don't like using exclamation points and question marks to denote the strength or weakness of moves. It's a purely subjective matter and depends on who's annotating. What one person thinks is brilliant may be deemed by a stronger player to be obvious (and unworthy of an exclamation point). I generally like to let the annotated comments speak for themselves. For example, when I think that I played a good move, I might annotate it with something like "I really like this move. It does x, y, and z." Then, there's no doubt as to what I think about the move. But if you annotate it as Ne4! (fictitious example), you might interpret it as one thing, but someone else might interpret it differently.

    Sorry for the long-winded post. What I'm trying to say is that you have to be careful when you use annotative symbols. Make sure that you back them up with an appropriate comment or you risk confusing readers.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #202

    Pikachulord6

    @theunderground702: Understanding problems aside, I DO think that the OP was referring to beginners in the first post. As for Live Chess, I would argue that it has some use, if it is at a slow time control. You're right though: Blitz and Bullet games aren't for beginners, and should be played in moderation even by more advanced players.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #203

    jetfighter13

    Pikachulord6 wrote:

    @jetfighter13: I haven't actually looked at all of your annotations, but I just wanted to make a bit of a point here. I personally don't like using exclamation points and question marks to denote the strength or weakness of moves. It's a purely subjective matter and depends on who's annotating. What one person thinks is brilliant may be deemed by a stronger player to be obvious (and unworthy of an exclamation point). I generally like to let the annotated comments speak for themselves. For example, when I think that I played a good move, I might annotate it with something like "I really like this move. It does x, y, and z." Then, there's no doubt as to what I think about the move. But if you annotate it as Ne4! (fictitious example), you might interpret it as one thing, but someone else might interpret it differently.

    Sorry for the long-winded post. What I'm trying to say is that you have to be careful when you use annotative symbols. Make sure that you back them up with an appropriate comment or you risk confusing readers.


     I normaly do that, but The Nxc7 did deserve it because it set up mate in one from a white up position not a forced mate, because if i was playing like a gm and retreated my bishop, i would not have mated as quickly

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #204

    Pikachulord6

    @jetfighter13: Yes, I can see your justfication for that move, but imagine that you're a master. A move like Nxc7 would still be the best move, there's no doubt about that. But it might not deserve an exclamation point. Instead, a move like retreating a bishop would be given a question mark, or, in some cases, two question marks. Nxc7 is the sort of move that punishes a mistake, and to many people, such a move isn't brilliant - it's obligatory. That said, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't use annotative symbols if that's what you feel comfortable doing. At the very least, it shows other people what moves you think are good and bad, and perhaps even more important, it gives other people a chance to correct any misconceptions you may have. For example, if you start annotating a game with 1.f3!, then someone would probably correct you and point you toward more reasonable opening moves like 1.e4, 1.d4, etc.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #205

    jetfighter13

    Pikachulord6 wrote:

    @jetfighter13: Yes, I can see your justfication for that move, but imagine that you're a master. A move like Nxc7 would still be the best move, there's no doubt about that. But it might not deserve an exclamation point. Instead, a move like retreating a bishop would be given a question mark, or, in some cases, two question marks. Nxc7 is the sort of move that punishes a mistake, and to many people, such a move isn't brilliant - it's obligatory. That said, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't use annotative symbols if that's what you feel comfortable doing. At the very least, it shows other people what moves you think are good and bad, and perhaps even more important, it gives other people a chance to correct any misconceptions you may have. For example, if you start annotating a game with 1.f3!, then someone would probably correct you and point you toward more reasonable opening moves like 1.e4, 1.d4, etc.


     well look at the stats for f3 e5 kf2 (the hammerschlang)50% for white, that is what chess is theoretically broken down to so in essence the theoreticaly perfect opening is the hammerschlang which arises from 1. f3!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #206

    Pikachulord6

    Lol. Clearly, I made a bad choice of example. You get my point, I hope.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #207

    jetfighter13

    Pikachulord6 wrote:

    Lol. Clearly, I made a bad choice of example. You get my point, I hope.


     oh and can someon annotate the game for me, just click the pgn buton and then click the chess board square in the corner of the comment box, click post game, then insert pgn copy and paste, hit enter then make comments on the moves from there you can add info change the design and insert and post the comment thank you

    oh and the reason for the quote thin above is just to say i just wanted to say that 1.a3 scores pretty well also

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #208

    Lucifer99

    I was hoping someone would be willing to annote the game I posted last page? I'd really like to get someone elses take on it

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #209

    GIex

    KageLord: Yes, 2...Qf6 is not a common response to the Parham attack. Usually 2...Nc6 followed by 3...g6 are played (often with 2.Bc4). A typical line could be:

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #210

    GIex

    pauix: Interesting game. Your opponent didn't have a good plan, because he could have omitted the pawn moves if he was going for the Fried Liver Attack or some similar variation. You got ahead in development, therefore you had a good counterattack Laughing

    eaglejorge:  The Greek Gift is also known as The Classic Bishop Sacrifice Laughing White exploits his kingside space control by using his pieces to attack before Black can reorganize and defend. Allowing the sacrifice is itself considered to be a mistake by Black, if White has prepared the requirements for it to be successful.

    I want to add something about using signs such as ?, !, etc. as supplement to  moves in the annotoation. There are different conventional rules of using them, that, although not required to follow, can make move sign annotation more objective (for example, the Nunn Convention), or at least can be taken into account even if not used. Otherwise, sign usage is dependent on the annotator's view. In both cases, it is not very good to have more than 1-2 !! or ?? moves or more than 3-4 ! or ? moves, because the difference between move evaluation becomes unclear, and the reader doesn't know what to pay attention to. The main purpose of those signs is to mark significant moments in the game, and unless the game is very sharp or carelessly played, there shouldn't be many of them.

    About the word "amateur": it can refer both to chess skill development degree (beginner, amateur, club level, etc.), or about a player's general approach to chess. "Amateur" could be also understood as "a person who doesn't professionally play chess, earns his living otherwise, plays chess only for fun and therefore can afford spending less time on studying it". Anyway, improving at chess usually requires studying it, but there is much difference in the way a professional and an amateur would annotate the same game, even if they are equally skilled. Professional annotation would omit much of the explanations (especially those of "book" moves that have already been studied and are considered by the general opinion to lead to equality) and use established (even if rare) terms, so it would be not very educational. I think that from a thoroughly annotated game, even a game including mistakes (that have been pointed out, of course, explained why they are incorrect and how the opponent can exploit them), a general chess fan can learn much more than from exploring a game with non-detailed annotation, even if it contains no significant errors. That's because it will teach a way of reasoning instead of giving a correct, but particular, move choice.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #211

    GIex

    I played another Parham Attack today. It was short, but it managed to include many themes that are distinctive to those games. Here it is:

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #212

    pauix

    GIex wrote:

    I played another Parham Attack today. It was short, but it managed to include many themes that are distinctive to those games. Here it is:


    Nice game, but I feel that black has no apparent weakness if he played 6...Bg7 and 7...0-0, with a setup similar to the King's Indian Defense. Anyways, you always made a good use of his mistakes, well done!Smile

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #213

    KageLord

    Glex, I'd love to play you some time (especially with you as White). By the way, out of curiosity, what do you play against e4 as Black?

    Anyway, I would love some feedback on the game I posted on the previous page. ;)

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #214

    GIex

    pauix wrote:
    Nice game, but I feel that black has no apparent weakness if he played 6...Bg7 and 7...0-0, with a setup similar to the King's Indian Defense. Anyways, you always made a good use of his mistakes, well done! 

    Yes, he could have hurried up with the ...0-0. He could have played 5...Bg7, 6...0-0 and he would have had a better game maybe (although it's not good to castle very early), unless he allows a kingside attack. But I think his main mistake was the light square bishop exchange. If he hadn't done it, he would have had much less trouble, and if he had castled but had made the exchange, he would've come up with a similar to this game's situation Laughing

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #215

    GIex

    KageLord wrote:

    Glex, I'd love to play you some time (especially with you as White). By the way, out of curiosity, what do you play against e4 as Black?

    Anyway, I would love some feedback on the game I posted on the previous page. ;)


    We can have some game. You'll probably win since you're much higher rated, but it will at least be interesting to play Laughing

    Against 1.e4 I usually play 1...c6, 1...Nf6, 1...g6, or 1...c5 (in order of preference Laughing). I play all of them relatively equally well, and I prefer to alternate them so that I can play different pawn structures (my opponents also have different replies), and not to get very used to a single one while neglecting others. This way I can see different White's strategies too that my opponents play.

    I will try to analyze your game and post it Laughing

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #216

    Thomas_Vandeputte

    socket2me wrote:

    I think 18. Kh2 was to give an extra defender to the pawns, and kind of a waiting move because he had finished development and hadn't got a clear target.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #217

    KageLord


    GIex wrote:
    KageLord wrote:

    Glex, I'd love to play you some time (especially with you as White). By the way, out of curiosity, what do you play against e4 as Black?

    Anyway, I would love some feedback on the game I posted on the previous page. ;)


    We can have some game. You'll probably win since you're much higher rated, but it will at least be interesting to play

    Against 1.e4 I usually play 1...c6, 1...Nf6, 1...g6, or 1...c5 (in order of preference ). I play all of them relatively equally well, and I prefer to alternate them so that I can play different pawn structures (my opponents also have different replies), and not to get very used to a single one while neglecting others. This way I can see different White's strategies too that my opponents play.

    I will try to analyze your game and post it


    Ah, rating doesn't matter all that much here. And I'm surprised that your rating is not closer to mine judging by your in-game moves and your analysis of those moves. Probably because you haven't played as many games here (correspondance, that is).

    Interesting. I know someone else that switches openings a lot, but his reason is more because he thinks he has found a better (objectively, he thinks) opening every month. Personally I always play c6, usually transposing into a French-like setup.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #218

    KageLord

    Another of my fun games from that tournament:

     

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #219

    Thomas_Vandeputte

    A game I just played. I get quickly a strong attack and checkmate.

    Comments and help are very appreciated.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #220

    KageLord

    Yes, Thomas, 11. Bxd5 is better. His bishop is pinned to his king, so he can't move it and you are going to get it (probably completely free) next turn. His position was about hopeless either way though. Nice checkmate to end it!

    Now that I think about it though, 11. Qh5+ is probably best of all. He is guaranteed to lose both of those minors and the only question left is how long it will take to mate his very poorly placed king


Back to Top

Post your reply: