Questions about annonators.

Ok so. After reading alekhine and nimzowitch and a few other annonators comments they use all words that are completely unnecessary just to sound smart half the times. this is why I like capablanca's annonations even though it's kind of lazy it's acutally simple and gets to the point quick. So i have two questions. why do ppl like nimzowitch and alekhine use such unnecessary words and make it complicated. Second question is there a annonator that's easy to understand?  please ignore this image I accidently inserted it?

What is an "annonation"? Are you referring to annotations?

Technical terms are not normally used to show off. The sort of people who would do that are also the sort of people who would probably use the the words incorrectly and end up looking dumb instead of smart.

Technical terms are used to narrow the focus of the discussion, so that the (educated) reader will understand not just the general idea but also the exact shade of meaning that the writer intended.

Who writes about chess using a clear, lucid style? Fischer. Tal. Bronstein... if I think of any others I'll add them to the list.

"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. However, annotated games vary widely in quality. Some are excellent study material. Others are poor. But the most numerous fall into a third category - good-but-wrong-for-you. ... You want games with annotations that answer the questions that baffle you the most. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

Annonator? 

Anno = year

Nat = born

Or = suffix for the doer

So the bunny's guess contextually would be the  contemporaries of alekhine and nimzowitsch, so chess masters playing between 1920 and 1930.

Please take this more seriously, emu.

#stopthecomedy

I've been hearing that a lot lately.

Ghost_of_Pushwood and I have a Comedy Self-Help Support Group.