We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.

here is one of mine, very complex

16. .. Nxb3 deserves a double question mark, because it gives away a piece.

16. .. Nxe5 should be played, resulting in material equality.

19. ..Kh8 and your opponent has got the initiative.

E.g. you move your knight to f3, there is Bf5, threatening d5 in the next move winning your pinned knight. If black didn't make a blunder losing a piece, the game would have been equal.

Good combination though, I think your opponent must have felt pretty much owned :d

Yes the position is cramped indeed, that bishop on g5 is really a pain in the ass. Good that you saw that move, it probably keeps the advantage to white. With good play of white, black will soon lose material because of the difficulties on developping the pieces on the queenside.

f4 is a good move. It not only increases the pressure, it stops the potential bishop chase (h6 followed by g5).

When you say you want more amateurs to post games, what rating levels are you looking for?  And do you want them posted here, or where?

man, you fell into a trap, melvinbluestone. What's with a4??

I saw this thread a while ago and finally I decided to post one of my games.I think this game would be useful for people under 1000,maybe 1200,because it shows some very basic attacking and tactical ideas.I don't claim that the game is neccessarly a good one,because both sides made mistakes.I hope some new players learn something from my game .

sorry i did not know how to add text before the board, so here it goes..it was a 10 min game played today on this site. i dont have a rating here, but i guess its roughly about 1400-1600ish in blitz. i posted the game only with verbal comments. i dont yet know how to add analysis tree on the board. hope it will be useful for some people. comments/criticisms welcome!

I find your game very instructive for new players.Nice lesson on development

That's from the first post.

I think this topic has deviated way too much from its original purpose. I hadn't visited the site for some time. When I logged in, I saw 60 new posts in the topic. As I didn't have time to read all of them, or to read but search for the players' strategical and tactical ideas, position evaluations and mistakes myself, I skipped the games without explanations. I wasn't sure whether there was anything interesting at them at all, and even if there was, it would take much time for someone who's not familiar with the game to discover it. I managed to find only about two annotated games to have a look at.

Anyway, this doesn't mean one shouldn't post not in-depth annotated games, especially if he's new to chess and not familiar with chess reasoning and annotating. But it would at least be good to mention which are the interesting or decisive points in the game, to give positional analysis at least two or three times when the position is equal or is about to change soon, to show some game plan options that the players had to choose between, to point the mistakes and why they are not correct, so that when someone has a look at the game and reads the annotations he will be able to see more than a move sequence. Otherwise it's very likely that he will skip the post and go to the next one.

If you have played an interesting game and want to post it, you should be able to help the possible readers with some similar hints, as you have already spent time on the game while playing it, and you have considered different options to choose from or to allow your opponent to choose from. I believe trying to analyze a not annotated game takes not less time than playing that game, and those who are looking at it would rather play a game themselves unless the author has offered them something more than a conundrum of uncertain quality.

Self annotation is not a struggle to fabricate an artificial text out of nowhere, neither is it showing a sequence of moves. It represents the flow of your own thoughts (and emotions) during the game course. That's what makes self-annotated games interesting, not the corectness of moves or something else. Who wants to find the best move will refer to a computer engine that can make deep calculations, humans aren't as efficient at that and don't need to pretend to be. What makes looking at self-annotated games interesting and educational for players of all skill levels is the player's personal approach that's expressed in them. That was the idea of this thread that hasn't managed to happen.

Game 1 of my match with a 2020-ish player.  We're playing first to win six games is declared winner.  Game 90, OTB.

Good game :), I'm not really qualified to comment on your game, I feel like halve your moves might of had a few threats I don't really see. But you are at least getting this topic back to its core. You're posting your losses with annotations so someone can help you see what, and why, things went wrong.

Actually I was white, haha.  Sorry for the confusion, I set up the board wrong.  

Anyway I'm going to continuously update this thread as the match progresses.  

A recent game of mine against the computer.  I'm not too sure about the analysis of it, though.  What were our main mistakes?

Wow, Thikron, I've never seen a bishop-knight mate in anything other than a book of theory. Congrats!

Thikron....if I was you on move 59...it would be a draw.Nice game

Thanks!  I was really pleasedwhen it happened.

Too bad I missed this thread. I just posted mine under a new thread, "Am I starting to get this game?" Forked52 vs Iris