Sorry about the double post, well heres the game I played as black. I played the games in the order I posted them
A simplified pattern of analysis can be:
1) what is the opening (and variation if there is one) until the game goes out of book;
2) analysis of the position after the game goes out of book provided no threat or forcing move has just been made:
- material (equal or advanatge for one side; exchanges and available pieces);
- pawn structure (majorities - center/kingside/queenside, chains, holes, doubled/backward/isolated/passed pawns, created open / semi-open files and diagonals, etc, whatever is specific for the position);
- center control, initiative, space advantage;
- king safety;
- piece development (is a player ahead/behind; coordination of pieces and of pieces - pawns).
3) possible middlegame plans for both players according to the position:
- how the position can be used - taking control of files, diagonals; putting pressure on an enemy weakness; exploiting early initiative, material, or space advantage (if existent); other position specific plans;
- attacking chances for the player that has the initiative - kingside/queenside/central attack; favorable pawn breaks; exploiting enemy weaknesses;
- counterplay for the other player - if existent, what it is; if there isn't, can it be achieved and how; how to prevent the opponent's plans;
- conclusion whether the position is favorable and should be used or unfavorable and should be changed, and how can that be done;
- plan choice; execution and adherence to it; opposition by the other player according to his counterplay options;
- variations of some "tactical" positions; tactical blunders;
- move choice reasons;
- position at the beginning - pawns, pieces, advantages (material; passed/semi-passed pawns, king advancement and others), etc.
- game plan; for "exact" endgames - correct way to win/draw;
- execution and result.
6) overall conclusion - when did the game become sharp; was it slow or fast paced, closed/open; when did a player take (change) the advantage, why (opponent's blunder/passivity; good plan and efficient execution) and how (advantades usage); when the outcome of the game was clear.
I know it sounds long, but don't worry, 10-15 sentences are usually enough to describe the whole game (without counting variation analysis) depending of its complexity. Analyzing some games in a similar way will help you perform better when playing too, because you will have some pattern of what to look for, and you will save time. Basically there's not much difference between playing a game and annotating a game, because both are exercises of position analysis (strategical and tactical) and move choice, and improving at annotating goes along with improving at playing. That's the main reason for this topic too
Here's what an analysis of the first game could be:
Thank you Glex, You really helped me see some things on the board I hadent been seeing before :) And your explanation on analysis was great :). Here's my analasis of a game I just played. I blundered terribly in the endgame :(
I will analyse it
Black's disaster starts after 13. b4. Trying to capture the knight, and of course few wrong moves leads to total disaster.
hi all here is my most recent win
This game was nearly a disaster, At move 12 I saw I was about to be mated in 1, so I immediately check so he cannot mate me, so I have time to make my escape.
I think we should analyze our losses. More often than not, we learn a lot more from our losses than our wins...
there is nothing wrong with analyzing your wins as well.
I have two games for you guys, i outplayed my oponent in both, but one i blundered into checkmate
Here's one from awhile ago. I'd like some analysis from this one!
I would love someone to analyse this one
is that move really a double exclam mark
Here's an annotated game I played today. I played White in a Sicilian Defense: Nimzowitsch Variation game.
Well played, and annoted well!
Glex, your annotations in the opening into the middle game really interested me and I feel like you may have overlooked many things. You seem to be a very thorough player so you should consider some of these points.
5. Ne4 - can you explain why you picked this move? it seems to me like you are giving away turns for insufficient compensation. Black's c-pawn is his gambit pawn, and moreover it is easily defended by ... e6, where it is defended by the bishop. 5. ...e6 is actually a very good move. Now your opponent has brought the bishop in (protecting c-pawn), and opened another line for his queen, while your queen is still trapped, only one of your bishops has prospects. On his side: both his bishops are out, one is already defending a piece, his queen has prospects.6. d4 - This is a logical move, but I still think you are miscalculating the situation. There cannot be a pin on the knight without a piece that is threatening to capture it. Even if things go according to your plan (...cxd4 7.Qxd4) - your opponent can bring out his other knight with tempo to c6, since it is chasing your queen away. Once his knight is there, it can recapture the queen if you ever take the queen, but this is not even necessary because: after your queen moves, he would have many good choices. He could bring out his bishop to d7, protecting the knight from ever being pin-attacked by your c-pawn. He could simply move his queen to c7, which is a good square. Anyway, after 6. ..f5 this is all irrelevant since that is a terrible move. But you should consider these things about this variation of the Sicilian. If you just spend a few minutes on the position you will see that e6 is a very good response, and that against a better player you would have lost your initiative at this point, and completely given your opponent the initiave if you followed through with your Qxd4 plan.8. ...Nc6? This would have been a useful move a few turns ago lol, like you say. At this point he could have still saved himself with Qa5+, getting the pawn back and eliminating the chance of your c-pawn attack.9.c4 In this scenario, your plan of course was successful, but please I want you to understand it was only possible because your opponent made some terrible mistakes. Normally this would never succeed. Sorry! 9. ...Nf6?! Even at this point, it seems to me that he could have saved himself from the embarassing knight re-capture on d8. If he had played ...Nb4, then if you do the queen trade, the next turn you would have to move your king in order to avoid his knight fork at c2!! So you wouldn't have exchanged queens probably, and if you attacked his knight, he could have exchanged your queen! 11. Ne5 is a very good move indeed, for all the reasons you mentioned. A beautiful spot.13.Nxf7 is a MUCH better idea than f4?!, because if f4, then he could have taken your knight and your poor f-pawn would end up on e5! and you'd be left with an open kingside.19.g4!? I still have to say that this kind of risk for your king is unnecessary, especially since this game is already in your favor. I know that there is no longer a queen and bishop, but now you have unnecessarily created a backward pawn at f3. While it is good to attack the kingside with pawn, it is not so good if it leaves your own kingside undefended. I also think you could have considered castling Queenside! Then you could have thrown all your pawns at him. Before b3, the queenside was a good spot for your king.Nice job with the bishop attack calculations and the checkmate at the end. Lol not capturing his rook with your bishop - stuff like that happens to me all the time and I kind of just sit there and say "uhhhhhh....... " =P