I like the ideas, good one,'Annotate Group' not bad. The question is whose game is going to be annotated ? I have been thinking about setting up a group to have 'game of the week' annotated ...? just a thought...
Could you imagine how fast you would improve if . . .
Sort:
kco- Isn't it Game of the Day? However, this doesn't give much time for analysis, does it? Perhaps it would work to just take the one that appears on Monday and then analyse it through the week.
Then you could have seperate threads in the group where you can analyse the group's member's games.
If you have the theoretical basis and the experience you MUST analyze and annotate your own games not just once,maybe once a year because theoretically you are getting better all the time so you will see those games differently each time you review them.
Aug 16, 2009
0
#5
I don't think the group is really necessary, as the Forum section 'game analysis' just fits the bill nicely (unless you want to keep all of this a little more private, of course...)
Aug 16, 2009
0
#6
that analysis hicetnunc not fully annotated like pazter24 used to do each week
Aug 16, 2009
0
#7
Well, you can write annotations for every move in this forum : nothing wrong with that 
Aug 16, 2009
0
#8
me !!! ??? I am only 1700 ( well just below that now !) I am hopeless in the endgame lol sometime I even screw up in the opening
Aug 16, 2009
0
#9
Annotating your own games doesn't require any specific level of play - you just try to find objectively good moves for both sides, and benefit from other player's suggestions. It's quite okay to make mistakes : everybody does
I know this is the best way to improve, and still I don't do it.
When I try, my brain sort of stops. I can't concentrate anywhere close to the concentration I get while playing. I get bored and I can't find anything non obvious. Especially after a major mistake has been made, then the rest of the game just doesn't seem as interesting to analyze (even though both players still had to play hard chess, there's no reason I couldn't have played those positions better).
So what happens is after an OTB game we do a quick post mortem, at home I just enter it into Scid and sometimes I let Rybka analyze it. I look up where we diverged from opening theory and what the blunders were according to Rybka, and that's it. I'm missing out on the benefits of analyzing my own games.
Is there anybody who had the same problem and managed to get out of it? Should I just stop being lazy?
Aug 16, 2009
0
#12
yep I've got the same problem too and you have just managed to answer your own question 'stop being lazy' is the answer ! 
p.s. I haven't managed to get out of it...
I can say that just playing doesn't really improve your game. I might buy a chess book one day, maybe even learn an opening!
Imagine.....IF you spent half the time you use for posting in forums on the internet actually studying and/or playing chess !
I feel pretty sure that had the internet been available back when I started I would never have reached NM.
Reb wrote:
Imagine.....IF you spent half the time you use for posting in forums on the internet actually studying and/or playing chess !
No kidding. But I don't know how!
I have played only a few hundred less games than you online and been a member for quite a period of time less. So I do play! Don't study anything to do with chess at all...but I do study, every time I am on here I am at the very least reading!
How many otb tournament games have you played ? If internet play improved one's chess I should be a lot better than NM by now as I have played tens of thousands of internet games since 1996 ( when I started playing on the net ) . I dont think internet play has improved my game at all.
Aug 16, 2009
0
#20
Scarblac wrote:
I know this is the best way to improve, and still I don't do it.
When I try, my brain sort of stops. I can't concentrate anywhere close to the concentration I get while playing. I get bored and I can't find anything non obvious. Especially after a major mistake has been made, then the rest of the game just doesn't seem as interesting to analyze (even though both players still had to play hard chess, there's no reason I couldn't have played those positions better).
So what happens is after an OTB game we do a quick post mortem, at home I just enter it into Scid and sometimes I let Rybka analyze it. I look up where we diverged from opening theory and what the blunders were according to Rybka, and that's it. I'm missing out on the benefits of analyzing my own games.
Is there anybody who had the same problem and managed to get out of it? Should I just stop being lazy?
Maybe you could try to analyze only a couple of positions you're interested in rather than the whole game.
Then you can try group analysis with fellow team mates, which can trigger your own analysis process.
A last solution would be to commit to publish your analysis (for example here on chess.com) : knowing that other people are going to have a look, show interest, and may spot your analysis mistakes might give you additional motivation.
If we had the patience to annotate every chess game we played? How much better do you think your game would be if you reviewed each game you played? What about for a month? A year? A week?
I'm bringing this up because I've read sooooo many posts on how to improve.
We hear
Now all of these steps are good! I'm don't think they have merit... but I don't see a lot of "annotate, analyze, and review your own games."
I love blitz. But I know that I can repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again... which will make it harder to break. I found out recently I had been playing a refuted line in the King's Gambit for YEARS. The moral of the story, good slow players are good blitz players.
I can say that when I annotate a game, I am 10 times more likely to remember my mistakes, the position, what I did wrong... and right. I know this helps me more because it's not abstract. It's not a composed problem. It's not a screen or book saying "White to move and win." It's a tangible game ... usually a painful loss that you let slip away and think about it over and over again. You aren't thinking about that puzzle problem you missed. Ironically, it seems like pulling teeth for me to make myself annotate my game!
The funny thing is that I actually enjoy annotating, but I just don't do it enough.
I don't send in annotations for our state chess magazines because it's a small chess community and its simply an invitation for everyone to book up on your openings and thinking process. (on a sidenote, I really wish chess.com would not let paid members see ALL of your games. I think that is why some members won't join or try to stay anonymous- Maybe the last 10 games only or something). I've decided that I will annotate my OTB games on chess.com. Maybe we should start an annotation group?
What do you think? Do you think you would drastically improve with annotating your game. Disclaimer: Of course, annotating your games HAS TO BE supplemented with something else. i.e. It does no good for me to annotate my game if I'm totally confused about the game. I think analyzing with stronger players and reading over titled players annotations helps me tremendously in this area.