Learning to annotate

here is one of my games that i annotated myself. if you are really a strong player and know how to annotate better, then i want to ask you to add what would be more exact or interesting as an annotation, or if you see a variation etc., just comment on it, and then i'll update the game with the new comments and we could see how annotations develop better as the thread grows and people could learn how to annotate from that. hopefully some strong players will see this is a good thing to do and help out!

please look at my game and make comments so we can build on a perfect annotation. every change we make will be documented so othes can see how it grows.

I might look at the game if you edit the post and use a proper chess set.

If you expect people to use their precious time helping you, you might at least be polite. Many topics get like 100 views and only 4 answers. You just posted this and you already expect people to answer?

so the post got edited and now here's a normal chess set, that's our first change.

Rules:

1. Be Polite.

2. If you want people to look at your games, then use a proper chess set.

Despite your impoliteness, your intentions are good enough. Anyway, my thoughts (forgive me as this will probably go on for quite a while!):

Opening - I also like the benko, but I think you need to try and understand some of the principles behind it (as well as general ones, like don't move a piece twice -eg moves 8 &11). You that you took on c4 because you're "supposed to" but the whole idea of the benko is to either distract (or in this case get rid of) white's central pawns. Similarly the 6...Qa5 - a decent idea, but as you yourself observed comes to nothing after Bd2.

Also when annotating give an example variation whenever you make some comment eg - 8.Rb1 - this is in fact a mistake as after 8.Bxc4! Qxb2; 9.Rb1 Qxa3; 10.Nb5 black's queen is trapped. (also later when you mention "nasty stuff" that means moves like Qa1/c1+ which wins a rook)

Middlegame - You played this really well, but regarding annotating games,don't bother with extremely obvious variations (like the one starting 18...Nxc6 where black ends up a rook up, though by all means point out that 19...Qxc6?? leaves the bishop hanging). Also try and consider what the other side, white, might have done. For example with the neat tactic after 20.Rxe7, I prefer Re3, moving the rook into an attacking position followed by Bc2 to eject the knight (if Nxb2 at some point, then white can ignore it because it is pinned to the queen). Finally when an opponent blunders into a mate in 1, what's usually more interesting is what would have happened if he had struggled on (though he is compeletely lost) ie - 26.Re2 and the game goes on.

Good game though, and a nice win for you!

thanks for taking the time to add your comments nickf001. i'm sorry if i was impolite earlier.

Here's our new rules:

Rules:

1. Be Polite.

2. If you want people to look at your games, then use a proper chess set.

3. Include the principles/plans of the opening you played.

4. Comment on mistakes with stronger variations (sub-variations are written in blue, and variations on the blue sub-variations are written in red, these are other possible moves you could have played in the game at that time).

5. Write your intended moves into the annotations, don't just give vague ideas.

6. People know simple tactics, if one is there, you don't need to include a variation to talk about it.

7. Consider what the other side could have done differently to make it a better fight and include the variation.

8. If the opponent blunders into mate, find the best continuation and include it at the end.

I really like your annotations, but there is one thing next time can be better:

The reason to annotate is becoming a better chess player. Than it helps to look things up (what did others in the same position?, what thinks an engine about my game play?, etc.).

For example: Move 4: You wrote: "i took it because in the benko gambit he's supposed to take it. so i did it for him! i don't know if that's bad or good."

I would have looked up if bxc4 is either good or bad. Then you know it for the next time! In my database 4.a3 is actually one of the four moves never played in this position. So I put on Fritz (an engine). He says it's ok to take the pawn. That's quite logic, because the idea of the benko is to attack the white center (c4 pawn). I would then write:

"He should have taken my pawn. Now he didn't, I took his and reached the same goal (attacking the center) without sacrificing a pawn!"

I might add to the previous post, that don't use engines too much. You'll learn much more when you try to think yourself rather than have a machine (without the ability to think creativily) think for you.

thank you Empire of Chess, and Murr for your help. it looks as if engines can really assist if there is a good question about opening play, and you don't know where else to turn cause the move isn't listed in the database. but if you use the engines too much, then you stop thinking for yourself. sometimes an engine is good when you analyze, but it can be too much of a good thing.

Here's our new rules:

Rules:

1. Be Polite.

2. If you want people to look at your games, then use a proper chess set.

3. Include the principles/plans of the opening you played.

4. Comment on mistakes with stronger variations (sub-variations are written in blue, and variations on the blue sub-variations are written in red, these are other possible moves you could have played in the game at that time).

5. Write your intended moves into the annotations, don't just give vague ideas.

6. People know simple tactics, if one is there, you don't need to include a variation to talk about it.

7. Consider what the other side could have done differently to make it a better fight and include the variation.

8. If the opponent blunders into mate, find the best continuation and include it at the end.

9. Check the opening moves with a database and see where improvements can be made.

10. If a move is made and isn't listed in the database, check it with an engine to determine whether the move or the response was good.

11. Use an engine to help answer some of your direct questions that can't be answered any other way, but don't over-rely on it for your analysis because you won't learn that way.

Sigh, it ate my comment, I'll try again, this time with a diagram...

I think the game was played pretty evenly, even though white's position seemed a bit better at times.  Starting with move 12 he uses checks and threats to help you finish your development and castle.  A few minor mistakes by both sides, but then white takes the bait on e7 and is just about immediately lost.

There were some minor mistakes like your moves 8 and 10, but your comments showed some inaccuracies in your thinking too.  I don't point those out to be a jerk but it's easy to dismiss or forget these kind of errors.  After we analyze the game we may think to ourselves, "so my move was good after all" (even if the reason you made it was poor, or you would have never seen a complicated tactic) or even after seeing a good variation, "oh, well that's the real reason I played it anyway" and so the player misses out on the opportunity to fix things.

Also your opponent's errors like on move 11 are instructive to notice.

My computer notes 9...e6 is a pretty big error contrary to my saying it's "ok"  White prepares e5 with 10.Nf3.  We already saw how 10...exd5 was bad, if 10...e5 to stop white from playing e5 himself white plays 11.b4

I guess I focused more on analysis than how to annotate.  A few times you ignore your opponent's reasons to play a move while paying much more attention to your own.  It's only natural to have better explanations for your own moves, but try to see things from your opponent's point of view when giving reasons for their moves.  Like move 14. Bc6 you say he's trying to keep you from castling queen side... but you say right after no one would expect you to castle over there anyway.  He may have thought it was a nice forward outpost on c6 (reached with a tempo) but in reality the bishop was vulnerable on c6 and the "tempo" only helped you active your rook.

This goes along with trying to be objective about the position.  Analyse the game as if you don't know who the players are and just try to find the truth of the position.  Like his move 22 you note he had to move his queen because of the threatened fork.  But you don't look for more challenging moves like 22.Qe3

Or on move 19, in analysis there's nothing sneaky about the threat on f2.  Simply say, this has two threats and he misses one.  Then give a better move for white instead of taking your bishop.  That's how you annotate...

and reading some of the earlier posts, you do start to do this... but it's best to avoid question mark moves in variations... why would you show a blunder as the main move in a variation! :)  (eg the variations beginning with 18...Nxc6 and 26. Re2).  The point of variations is to show why a different move works/doesn't work, never go into blunders.

updating... (placeholder)

all of my last comments and even the game got deleted yesterday so i have to do it over again.

Save and preview early, then edit... saves a lot of misery. Learned this the hard way. BUT... if you've been working a long time and think you may have timed out on the page DONT hit save and preview or your work is gone baby gone (learned this the hard way too).   If you've been working too long on an unsaved message the only thing you can do is mouse copy (or cut) and reload the page.

thanks orangehonda for all of your comments and your analysis and annotations on top of that, it was really helpful. i'm glad to know where my thinking was wrong if i correct it than i just get stronger.

JG27Pyth - thanks for that. i don't know what happend before, i got timed out i guess, so i'll keep saving as i go next time.

Here's the newest update, and orangehonda's comments are incorporated into the game like the others:

Rules:

1. Be Polite.

2. If you want people to look at your games, then use a proper chess set.

3. Include the principles/plans of the opening you played.

4. Comment on mistakes with stronger variations (sub-variations are written in blue, and variations on the blue sub-variations are written in red, these are other possible moves you could have played in the game at that time).

5. Write your intended moves into the annotations, don't just give vague ideas.

6. People know simple tactics, if one is there, you don't need to include a variation to talk about it.

7. Consider what the other side could have done differently to make it a better fight and include the variation.

8. If the opponent blunders into mate, find the best continuation and include it at the end.

9. Check the opening moves with a database and see where improvements can be made.

10. If a move is made and isn't listed in the database, check it with an engine to determine whether the move or the response was good.

11. Use an engine to help answer some of your direct questions that can't be answered any other way, but don't over-rely on it for your analysis because you won't learn that way.

12. Summarize the game's ideas. This helps you save the game into different lesson folders for review after.

13. If you did something right for the wrong reason, find out what the right reason is, and don't think like that anymore.


14. Keep fair about the game, just act like there two guys playing and you don't know them. This way you find the best play for both sides.

15. Variations and sub-variations are used to show if different moves work or don't work, so don't include blunders in them.

16. Don't spell everything out. If there's an easy-to-see simple tactic, you don't need to talk about it.

17. Even if your opponent lost, they still have lessons for you so look for them.

for practise you could try to annotate another game: this one was widely annotetoed by other posters, we want to see if you have understanded.

i think that's a good idaea, but there's also a nother one. i want to take a master game and get some volunteers from different ratings, i'll be one of them. then i want to send the game to everyone to annotate, and when they send them back i can post everyone's at the same time.

then we could compare side by side notes to see the differences in analysis and annotating skills between players of different ratings. i think it would really help out a lot to learn how to get better.

if there's anyone that thinks this is a good idea and wants to join in, just drop a note to me.

there are now two or three players who want to annotate a mastergame, can i get a couple more? the thing is maybe we see things differently so if you annotate a game and its different from someone of the same rating maybe you can help to identify your style or else areas to get stronger.

i also need a really strong player to serve as the guy who will pick out the master game as he knows its interesting but maybe it's not analyzed in books etc, so no cheating goes on and no one knows about it, but it's still interesting is what i'm tryin gto say.