11143 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Here's two games I played against the same person 3 days ago. I'm not exactly sure how to analyze/annotate games so judge my chess skills and my analyzation/annotation skills. :P
Sorry about the double post, well heres the game I played as black. I played the games in the order I posted them
A simplified pattern of analysis can be:
1) what is the opening (and variation if there is one) until the game goes out of book;
2) analysis of the position after the game goes out of book provided no threat or forcing move has just been made:
- material (equal or advanatge for one side; exchanges and available pieces);
- pawn structure (majorities - center/kingside/queenside, chains, holes, doubled/backward/isolated/passed pawns, created open / semi-open files and diagonals, etc, whatever is specific for the position);
- center control, initiative, space advantage;
- king safety;
- piece development (is a player ahead/behind; coordination of pieces and of pieces - pawns).
3) possible middlegame plans for both players according to the position:
- how the position can be used - taking control of files, diagonals; putting pressure on an enemy weakness; exploiting early initiative, material, or space advantage (if existent); other position specific plans;
- attacking chances for the player that has the initiative - kingside/queenside/central attack; favorable pawn breaks; exploiting enemy weaknesses;
- counterplay for the other player - if existent, what it is; if there isn't, can it be achieved and how; how to prevent the opponent's plans;
- conclusion whether the position is favorable and should be used or unfavorable and should be changed, and how can that be done;
- plan choice; execution and adherence to it; opposition by the other player according to his counterplay options;
- variations of some "tactical" positions; tactical blunders;
- move choice reasons;
- position at the beginning - pawns, pieces, advantages (material; passed/semi-passed pawns, king advancement and others), etc.
- game plan; for "exact" endgames - correct way to win/draw;
- execution and result.
6) overall conclusion - when did the game become sharp; was it slow or fast paced, closed/open; when did a player take (change) the advantage, why (opponent's blunder/passivity; good plan and efficient execution) and how (advantades usage); when the outcome of the game was clear.
I know it sounds long, but don't worry, 10-15 sentences are usually enough to describe the whole game (without counting variation analysis) depending of its complexity. Analyzing some games in a similar way will help you perform better when playing too, because you will have some pattern of what to look for, and you will save time. Basically there's not much difference between playing a game and annotating a game, because both are exercises of position analysis (strategical and tactical) and move choice, and improving at annotating goes along with improving at playing. That's the main reason for this topic too
Here's what an analysis of the first game could be:
Thank you Glex, You really helped me see some things on the board I hadent been seeing before :) And your explanation on analysis was great :). Here's my analasis of a game I just played. I blundered terribly in the endgame :(
I will analyse it
Black's disaster starts after 13. b4. Trying to capture the knight, and of course few wrong moves leads to total disaster.
hi all here is my most recent win
This game was nearly a disaster, At move 12 I saw I was about to be mated in 1, so I immediately check so he cannot mate me, so I have time to make my escape.
I think we should analyze our losses. More often than not, we learn a lot more from our losses than our wins...
there is nothing wrong with analyzing your wins as well.
I have two games for you guys, i outplayed my oponent in both, but one i blundered into checkmate
Here's one from awhile ago. I'd like some analysis from this one!
I would love someone to analyse this one
is that move really a double exclam mark
Here's an annotated game I played today. I played White in a Sicilian Defense: Nimzowitsch Variation game.
4/23/2014 - Got Him
by Shishir1 a few minutes ago
Chronos clock battery life
by MikeH76 2 minutes ago
The bishop in other languages
by ancomarijs 2 minutes ago
breaking news Carlsens blunders away a winning position
by jesterville 5 minutes ago
That's it im quiting chess
by JasjotSingh_1 6 minutes ago
When is a Checkmate Not "Really" a Checkmate
by Unleash_the_Queens 10 minutes ago
by kaynight 23 minutes ago
How to recover from a blunder or a bad loss
by Serotonine 27 minutes ago
What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?
by kaynight 29 minutes ago
What would be the average rating for a 13 year old
by Scottrf 43 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!