This week we are re-emphasizing the need to annotate your games and to do it well! In December, Arshaq and I went over your analysis and gave feedback. I am starting to see some sloppy/lazy annotations and we need to get back into form! Also, I am giving you a chance to earn Kings this week!
SUMMARY
Annotate your games from USAT-North and the Barber/Denker. In addition to the 5 pawns below, I will award a King for the best-annotated game overall and for the best-annotated game by a player under 1200. Submit no more than 2 games and one must be a loss or draw.
Analyze this position from Thursday’s practice that we reached below in the Euwe - Geller, Zurich 1953, Round 2) (Up to a King)
Take care,
Jim
Annotate Your Games (5 Pawns); King for Best Annotated Game players above and below 1200.
Why is this so important and why do Dan, Arshaq, and I keep preaching this? Well, it is fundamentally one of the most important ways to improve. I found a nice article online that you may read, “Analyze your Chess Games - Why and How,” with the following quotes from top chess players in the history of the game!
“In the late 1960s, Mikhail Botvinnik was asked to take a look at a talented Yugoslavian youngster, Ljubomir 'Ljubo' Ljubojević. They met, and Ljubo began showing him something over the board.
‘Do you analyze your own games?,’ asked Botvinnik in his typical manner.
‘What for?,’ Ljubo asked in genuine surprise.
‘Here I realized nothing worthwhile would come of him’, the sixth World Champion concluded.
(Source: Garry Kasparov: "On My Great Predecessors", Part Two, p. 187)”
“Reigning European and Croatian Champion, Ivan Šarić, stated that analysis of your own games is the most important method of chess training for players of all levels.”
“Garry Kasparov, said, ‘By strictly observing Botvinnik’s rule regarding the thorough analysis of one’s own games, with the years I have come to realize that this provides the foundation for the continuous development of chess mastery’"
“Last, but not least, famous grandmaster Artur Yusupov, a former member of the world top ten and a pupil of the world's arguably most famous coach, Mark Dvoretsky, has written the following about the analysis of your own games:
‘...it is quite possible that my own development as a chessplayer has been successful precisely because I have devoted a great deal of time to the analysis of my own games. I consider the analysis of one's own games is the main method by which a chessplayer can improve and I am convinced that it is impossible for a player to improve without having a critical understanding of his own games […] Our own games are nearer to us than any others. We played them and we solved problems which were put in our way. In the analysis, it is possible to examine and to define more precisely the assessments by which we were guided during the course of the game, and we can establish where we went wrong, where we played inaccurately. Sometimes our opponent punishes us for the mistakes we make, but often they remain unnoticed and may only be brought to light by analysis.’“ (Source: Mark Dvoretsky, Artur Yusupov, "Training For The Tournament Player", p. 46)
So, let us review again our method for analyzing games. Additional thought in red text.
Annotated Games (up to 5 pawns)
♟ Identify the plan at various stages of the game referencing Silman's list of imbalances. While you don’t in any way need to list all of the imbalances in the position, it is a brainstorming exercise that will help you generate ideas for the rest of the steps. (Need help remembering all 10? Click here.)
♟ Demonstrates an understanding of the where your play could have improved with examples of possible continuations outside the moves actually played. (Refer to the plans identified in the previous step.) I want to see a series of specific moves/variations (e.g. tactics that execute the plan). Four or more moves deep is plenty. I am seeing a lot of annotations that follow a move with “so my opponent couldn’t move here” or “attacking the piece.” That offers little to no insight. Explain why it is important not to let a piece land on the identified square or why it is important to attack a piece (e.g. its pinned, drive away a key defender, etc.)
♟ Demonstrates an understanding of the plans for the opponent with examples of possible continuations outside the moves actually played. Focus on possibilities you opponent missed and steps you can take to slow or stop the opponent's plan. I want to see a series of specific moves/variations (e.g. tactics that execute the plan). Four or more moves deep is plenty. Okay, put it all together. (In business, we call this a SWOT analysis)
(S) What Strengths in your position are you building upon?
(W) What Weaknesses in your position are you trying to defend?
(O) What Opportunities are there to exploit in your opponent's position?
(T) What Threats does your opponent present?
♟ Identify tactics not played in the game and/or moves a player should have played to prevent the execution of the tactic that did occur in the game. I want to see a series of specific moves/variations (e.g. tactics that execute the plan). Four or more moves deep is plenty. What mistakes did you or your opponent make and what better move could have been played.
♟ Reflect upon how you felt during the game. Did you just come off a loss or win and what were your expectations going in? Did you feel comfortable or uncomfortable in the opening and why? Did you reach an endgame position that you had studied? Heading into the last couple of rounds, was there something at stake (e.g. placing, trying to reach a positive score, improve your rating, etc.). We are not computers. Understanding your emotions before and during the game affect your play. Understand that and you can manage that important aspect, too.
Euwe - Geller, Zurich 1953, Round 2 (Up to a King)
Here is the PGN that you may cut and paste in your editor. Bring a printed / handwritten copy to practice on Thursday!
White played 24. Rc1? and went on to lose. What is the only continuation that GM Bondarevsky, Geller’s second, found for White to hold the draw? I need some depth to the analysis here, but even Najdorf admittedly he could not draw a final conclusion.
“The reader will forgive me if here (and in several other cases) I do not give a final opinion on certain positions. And we must confess, in all honesty, that a chess master is, before anything else, a human being, who cannot arrive at infallible conclusions, even after days of analysis such as this difficult game demands. Chess is not a mathematical science that permits exact equations; it is first of all a game, a very difficult game, in which precision and beauty pursue each other eternally. And often without either catching the other!”
Hi Pawn Stormers,
This week we are re-emphasizing the need to annotate your games and to do it well! In December, Arshaq and I went over your analysis and gave feedback. I am starting to see some sloppy/lazy annotations and we need to get back into form! Also, I am giving you a chance to earn Kings this week!
SUMMARY
Annotate your games from USAT-North and the Barber/Denker. In addition to the 5 pawns below, I will award a King for the best-annotated game overall and for the best-annotated game by a player under 1200. Submit no more than 2 games and one must be a loss or draw.
Analyze this position from Thursday’s practice that we reached below in the Euwe - Geller, Zurich 1953, Round 2) (Up to a King)
Annotate Your Games (5 Pawns); King for Best Annotated Game players above and below 1200.
Why is this so important and why do Dan, Arshaq, and I keep preaching this? Well, it is fundamentally one of the most important ways to improve. I found a nice article online that you may read, “Analyze your Chess Games - Why and How,” with the following quotes from top chess players in the history of the game!
“In the late 1960s, Mikhail Botvinnik was asked to take a look at a talented Yugoslavian youngster, Ljubomir 'Ljubo' Ljubojević. They met, and Ljubo began showing him something over the board.
‘Do you analyze your own games?,’ asked Botvinnik in his typical manner.
‘What for?,’ Ljubo asked in genuine surprise.
‘Here I realized nothing worthwhile would come of him’, the sixth World Champion concluded.
(Source: Garry Kasparov: "On My Great Predecessors", Part Two, p. 187)”
“Reigning European and Croatian Champion, Ivan Šarić, stated that analysis of your own games is the most important method of chess training for players of all levels.”
“Garry Kasparov, said, ‘By strictly observing Botvinnik’s rule regarding the thorough analysis of one’s own games, with the years I have come to realize that this provides the foundation for the continuous development of chess mastery’"
“Last, but not least, famous grandmaster Artur Yusupov, a former member of the world top ten and a pupil of the world's arguably most famous coach, Mark Dvoretsky, has written the following about the analysis of your own games:
‘...it is quite possible that my own development as a chessplayer has been successful precisely because I have devoted a great deal of time to the analysis of my own games. I consider the analysis of one's own games is the main method by which a chessplayer can improve and I am convinced that it is impossible for a player to improve without having a critical understanding of his own games […] Our own games are nearer to us than any others. We played them and we solved problems which were put in our way. In the analysis, it is possible to examine and to define more precisely the assessments by which we were guided during the course of the game, and we can establish where we went wrong, where we played inaccurately. Sometimes our opponent punishes us for the mistakes we make, but often they remain unnoticed and may only be brought to light by analysis.’“
(Source: Mark Dvoretsky, Artur Yusupov, "Training For The Tournament Player", p. 46)
So, let us review again our method for analyzing games. Additional thought in red text.
Annotated Games (up to 5 pawns)
♟ Identify the plan at various stages of the game referencing Silman's list of imbalances. While you don’t in any way need to list all of the imbalances in the position, it is a brainstorming exercise that will help you generate ideas for the rest of the steps. (Need help remembering all 10? Click here.)
♟ Demonstrates an understanding of the where your play could have improved with examples of possible continuations outside the moves actually played. (Refer to the plans identified in the previous step.) I want to see a series of specific moves/variations (e.g. tactics that execute the plan). Four or more moves deep is plenty. I am seeing a lot of annotations that follow a move with “so my opponent couldn’t move here” or “attacking the piece.” That offers little to no insight. Explain why it is important not to let a piece land on the identified square or why it is important to attack a piece (e.g. its pinned, drive away a key defender, etc.)
♟ Demonstrates an understanding of the plans for the opponent with examples of possible continuations outside the moves actually played. Focus on possibilities you opponent missed and steps you can take to slow or stop the opponent's plan. I want to see a series of specific moves/variations (e.g. tactics that execute the plan). Four or more moves deep is plenty. Okay, put it all together. (In business, we call this a SWOT analysis)
(S) What Strengths in your position are you building upon?
(W) What Weaknesses in your position are you trying to defend?
(O) What Opportunities are there to exploit in your opponent's position?
(T) What Threats does your opponent present?
♟ Identify tactics not played in the game and/or moves a player should have played to prevent the execution of the tactic that did occur in the game. I want to see a series of specific moves/variations (e.g. tactics that execute the plan). Four or more moves deep is plenty. What mistakes did you or your opponent make and what better move could have been played.
♟ Reflect upon how you felt during the game. Did you just come off a loss or win and what were your expectations going in? Did you feel comfortable or uncomfortable in the opening and why? Did you reach an endgame position that you had studied? Heading into the last couple of rounds, was there something at stake (e.g. placing, trying to reach a positive score, improve your rating, etc.). We are not computers. Understanding your emotions before and during the game affect your play. Understand that and you can manage that important aspect, too.
Euwe - Geller, Zurich 1953, Round 2 (Up to a King)
Here is the PGN that you may cut and paste in your editor. Bring a printed / handwritten copy to practice on Thursday!
[Event "ct"]
[Site "Zurich"]
[Date "1953.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Geller E"]
[Black "Euwe M"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E28"]
[Annotator "Hodina,James"]
[PlyCount "52"]
[EventDate "1953.??.??"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. Bxc3 b6 7. Bd3 Bb7 8. f3 Nc6 9. Ne2 O-O 10. O-O Na5 11. e4 Ne8 12. Ng3 cxd4 13. cxd4 Rc8 14. f4 Nxc4 15. f5 f6 16. Rf4 b5 $1 17. Rh4 Qb6 18. e5 Nxe5 19. fxe6 Nxd3 20. Qxd3 Qxe6 21. Qxh7+ Kf7 22. Bh6 Rh8
Geller - Euwe (Zurich, 1953)
White to move
White played 24. Rc1? and went on to lose. What is the only continuation that GM Bondarevsky, Geller’s second, found for White to hold the draw? I need some depth to the analysis here, but even Najdorf admittedly he could not draw a final conclusion.
“The reader will forgive me if here (and in several other cases) I do not give a final opinion on certain positions. And we must confess, in all honesty, that a chess master is, before anything else, a human being, who cannot arrive at infallible conclusions, even after days of analysis such as this difficult game demands. Chess is not a mathematical science that permits exact equations; it is first of all a game, a very difficult game, in which precision and beauty pursue each other eternally. And often without either catching the other!”