On move 16. Nf6+ is actually a huge blunder because instead of moving the king black can play 16. Qxf6 and no matter what you’ll be down a piece.
But other than that you’ve done pretty well.
edit: Instead of 16. Nf6+ you can play 16. Qg4 (Move your queen out of danger or 16. Nxf4 (because the pawn on g5 is pinned.
I didn't notice the move 16 blunder. Thank you Wintanna.
After looking at that I would've played 16. Kt x KB4 like you suggested in your edit. Or at least should have 😄
16. Kt x PKB4*
Can anyone else please chime in?
Dont think you need to add commentary to moves like 1. e4 2. d4 and 3. Nc3.
3. ...g6 is the first departure from normal play, while not a bad move I think that makes 4. e5 a good place to start commentary
For moves like 5. Nf3 no comments are necessary as its a straight forward developing move. Only reason to comment there is if you are analyzing alternatives to 5. Nf3 such as 5. g4 which you definitely should.
For 5. ...Bg4 that is a clear loss of tempo (moving the same piece twice for no good reason) and a comment should be made acknowledging this and proposing a better move for the opponent.
Again 7. Qxf3 is another superfluous comment. Nothing should be written unless gxf3 is being considered as an alternative.
At 13. Bxf5 you mention how you wish you kept the bishop on the board as a potential attacker. If you arent satisfied with a move you make, enter an alternative. Explore a few moves deep and try to figure out if you can come up with something better.
You have some great insights on the position in your analysis but it reads more as a recitation of your thought process during the game. What would help you improve is search for the moments where either side makes a move you think isnt best and suggest an alternative. Go in a few moves deep and try to uncover some truth about the position so you can learn from mistakes. If its hard to find where one side went wrong go to the first moment where one side is clearly worse/better then work backwards to find out how that happened and if improvements can be made.
My apologies about commenting on every move. My reasoning for that is if whoever goes over the game will know exactly what I was thinking during the entire game, making it easier to highlight what was good and bad about my playing. Don't want to leave any room for misinterpretation.
16. Kt x PKB4*
Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
It is very rare nowadays that someone uses the "descriptive notation", but apparently some extremely old US players are still sticking with it.
38. It's what I cut my teeth on when I was 15. I can use algebraic, but I prefer descriptive. I find it more intuitive and easier to visualize the moves
38. It's what I cut my teeth on when I was 15.
That"s weird. When you were 15, descriptive was already a relic of the past, the US gave up on it two decades earlier. (And the whole world forgot about it a century before that). But OK.
Most of the books I have use descriptive. Using what I'm familiar with. May seem weird to you or anyone else but it's perfectly normal for me as that's what I'm use to. No need to fix what ain't broke
Most of the books I have use descriptive. Using what I'm familiar with. May seem weird to you or anyone else but it's perfectly normal for me as that's what I'm use to. No need to fix what ain't broke
Actually there is one strong reason to fix it: just to be able to communicate with people. 99.9% of chess players have never heard of descriptive notation, let alone be able to interpret it.
It's also harder to use and clumsier and more error-prone.
I am not the best at annotating myself but let me tell you something. Annotations can have a reason. Sometimes you do them to list some candidate moves you were evaluating in-game, sometimes you do comments that others do not think useful, but you could say how you felt in that position, what you were afraid of or similar things. Even if it does not say what was right and wrong, and maybe you did not see any mistakes in your play or the one of your opponent, you could understand something of fears you should not have, of things you do not focus enough, and so on.
I hope that the more we write the more we train that muscle and the more the annotations get better.
Can anyone analyse my games and let me know how to improve. I am v frustrated with slow progress.
Please help me analyze my game. Just starting to take analysis seriously and it's important to get unbiased feedback. What was good, what was bad. What needs work etc. thank you very much In advance to those who help contribute.