What is the thought process of players when analyzing games? How do we dissect the game move by move and explain it all? And how much does that process differ by rating? This is what I'll be trying to figure out in this post. I'm new to this topic, so we'll all be learning about this together...
I got the idea for this post when @Excheqquer sent me a message. Here's the first message:
Hello, I was thinking as a novelty, I could send you one of my games, with my annotation as a 1200 player and you could add your expertise as 2000+ player.
I'm not an expert yet. Just saying.
Anyway, here we are. He sent me a game that he had already analyzed for his own blog to analyze.
On that note, when you're done with this, go check out Excheqquer's blog. Right now he's putting the chess.com study plan (articles found at https://www.chess.com/article/search?keyword=study+plan) to the test, following the plan and narrating how it has helped him in his games. So far a lot of progress has been made, and it's very interesting to watch as he climbs the rating ladder. You can find all of his posts at https://www.chess.com/blog/Excheqquer.
The specific post where he analyzed the game that I will also be analyzing today can be found here: https://www.chess.com/blog/Excheqquer/the-chess-com-study-plan-and-my-test-of-it
Now, back to the show.
It'll sound weird, but we're going to analyze analysis. Meaning that I'll present game analysis done be me and Excheqquer, and will afterward comment on the differences and ways that we think.
There are three versions of the same game that I will analyze. First up is the game analyzed by Excheqquer without the assistance of an engine.
Not bad at all! Overall I would say that this analysis is quite good and explains how the player thought about each move. Also there are some amusing comments... however, some of the annotations do not show full understanding of the game and what is going on in it. For example, counting pieces. In this case specifically the quantitative judgment of material was no unjustified as white had no compensation for the material deficit, but usually you cannot just define an advantage by counting who has more pieces. Different pieces have different values (I'm sure that Excheqquer and most of the readers who are reading this know this already, but there might be a few beginners reading this), and you for example a rook and 4 minor pieces (in total, 17 points materialistically) outweigh 5 minor pieces (15 points materialistically counting), but again, the position also matters.
Also, Excheqquer understands that the Bowdler attack isn't a very good opening for white (this can't be denied...) there is no explanation given why.
So I would say that the analysis is quite good, but what is lacking is some understanding of certain aspects of the game as is wont of lower rated players. This is probably what you had in mind already, but how you come to this conclusion is important. Next, Excheqquer's analysis using the engine.
Ok, so it isn't much different. But there are some revelations for Excheqquer as to what moves are better or more accurate than the moves played. Using the engine also helped because he realized that instead of playing 3... d6, playing ...d5 in one move would have held an advantage for black.
So we come to the conclusion that to a 1200 an engine is useful for calculating tactics that are harder for a human rated 1200 to see and getting insight as to what moves in the opening can get an advantage and why (giving lines). Next is my analysis. I did have chess.com's engine on when analyzing this, but I tried to minimize my usage of it for the purpose of this post, so you'll see that there are only a few spots where I had the engine clarify the position.
First things first. This is long. It took a long time to do. That's basically because I wrote down almost all of my thoughts about the game, which is a lot. I'm going to look at this objectively. One of the reasons that I'm a 2000 and Excheqquer is a 1200 is because I know more about the game. Sorry, that might have sounded arrogant. But unfortunately (sorry!) it's very likely true. I give more explanations of each move and more in-depth, but there are still drawbacks of my analysis. 2000s aren't perfect. They don't analyze perfectly. My thought's about the game aren't perfect. I'm only 2000. If you read the annotations again you'll find a lot of places where I could have improved on, and you can leave them in the comments if you wish so all of us can improve.
To finish, we'll say that the main difference between how 1200s and 2000s think is how much they know and how well they understand. Of course, there's also how well they explain what they're thinking and how they write it that factors in, but that doesn't take first in importance as you need to know and understand before you can actually write it. Don't think that I'm degrading Excheqquer. He's a great guy and great chess player. All I'm saying is that he can improve, as we all can, and right now, at this moment, I'm rated above him for a reason.
Tell me what you all think of this, because it's my first time "analyzing analysis" and I don't know how I did. In any case, I hope you enjoyed it! I'll probably do more posts like these, they're fun to do with the other person and is educational for everyone.
Don't forget to check out Excheqquer's blog!
See you next time!
