PDA

View Full Version : annotations



qpawn
26-03-2006, 06:00 PM
Do you think that it is useful for your chess development to give annotations to your opponent the week after you have played him or her? Or do you regard it as a waste time?

Here is the poll...

Carl Gorka
26-03-2006, 08:37 PM
Do you think that it is useful for your chess development to give annotations to your opponent the week after you have played him or her? Or do you regard it as a waste time?

Here is the poll...

I analyse and annotate my games, sometimes in great depth and sometimes in not such great depth. If my opponent wants then I would be happy to share some of my notes with them. But mostly I analyse for my own benefit, and I don't think sharing my analysis would be of benefit to me unless it produced some meaningful discussion with my opponent...ie, feedback.

I think the most useful is analysing with an opponent immediately after the game.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-03-2006, 09:06 AM
I usually analyse my games, but rarely put a formal annotation

Spiny Norman
27-03-2006, 10:34 AM
I analyze and annotate, then work through the game with my coach (who has also analyzed it himself) ... and we compare notes.

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2006, 01:43 PM
I always analyse but only annotate if the game is of interest and I intend to publish it. I am retrospectively annotating all my old games that I have scores of (currently up to #344 of 806 but the latter number grows almost as fast as the first).

I'd never give an annotation to an opponent without pre-arranging to do this. I might however say "hey remember last week on move 64 I could have played Rxa3? (opponent replies) Well I looked at it at home and it only draws after all" etc.

I find that the postmortem reveals much of the thinking behind the game but only about half the objective reality. Analysis using (but not blindly following) a computer at home is much more useful.

WhiteElephant
27-03-2006, 01:48 PM
Do people really annotate their own games? Wow, that is dedication!

Oh and if my opponent came up to me a week later and told me he'd annotated our game (particularly if it was a game that he had won) I would think he was being arrogant. A friendly analysis after the game is the way to go.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-03-2006, 02:20 PM
I find that the postmortem reveals much of the thinking behind the game but only about half the objective reality. Analysis using (but not blindly following) a computer at home is much more useful.

You'd be amazed how many things I found using computer that went uncovered not only during the game, but even during the after-game analysis with some very strong opponents.

In my game against Eddy Levi in last Vic championship we had 4 (four!) international masters looking at the game (as well as yours truly and Eddy) and nobody noticed simple (but quite elegant and unusual) combination that would finish the game in a couple of moves.

qpawn
27-03-2006, 02:25 PM
White elephant:

Do people really annotate their own games? Wow, that is dedication!

Oh and if my opponent came up to me a week later and told me he'd annotated our game (particularly if it was a game that he had won) I would think he was being arrogant. A friendly analysis after the game is the way to go.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't agree that there is an arrogance about giving annotations to an opponent you defeated. I would be happy to receive annotations from someone who had beaten me. "Arrogance" would seem to be reflected more by the attention paid to the annotator's own errors; a lack of attention would be arrogant.

I have issues with "friendly analysis" after the game being sufficient. Just after the heat of the moment, when the clock has just been ticking, doesn't seem to me to be a time of objectivity. I like to go home, put the game onto Fritz, and work through it all in the light of day.

White Elephant should already know that there are some real hardcore chessnuts on this board! I am one of them whatever my measly rating shows :lol:

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2006, 02:33 PM
You'd be amazed how many things I found using computer that went uncovered not only during the game, but even during the after-game analysis with some very strong opponents.

In my game against Eddy Levi in last Vic championship we had 4 (four!) international masters looking at the game (as well as yours truly and Eddy) and nobody noticed simple (but quite elegant and unusual) combination that would finish the game in a couple of moves.

I've often found in cases like this that both players miss the same idea. Intuition is all well and good but in positions that are counter-intuitive there is no substitute for blind number-crunching.

Another thing I've noticed about human analysis is that it's easier to perceive that someone has a very large advantage when it's actually quite even. Computers show that many games are closer than they look (although sometimes when the computer claims it's even, one side actually has a very strong position and the computer hasn't seen the storm because it is too many moves in the future.)

WhiteElephant
27-03-2006, 08:22 PM
White elephant:

Do people really annotate their own games? Wow, that is dedication!

Oh and if my opponent came up to me a week later and told me he'd annotated our game (particularly if it was a game that he had won) I would think he was being arrogant. A friendly analysis after the game is the way to go.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't agree that there is an arrogance about giving annotations to an opponent you defeated. I would be happy to receive annotations from someone who had beaten me. "Arrogance" would seem to be reflected more by the attention paid to the annotator's own errors; a lack of attention would be arrogant.

I have issues with "friendly analysis" after the game being sufficient. Just after the heat of the moment, when the clock has just been ticking, doesn't seem to me to be a time of objectivity. I like to go home, put the game onto Fritz, and work through it all in the light of day.

White Elephant should already know that there are some real hardcore chessnuts on this board! I am one of them whatever my measly rating shows :lol:

I have never used Fritz or any other engine to analyse any of my games. Which probably explains the standard of my chess :)

Carl Gorka
27-03-2006, 10:22 PM
Analysis engines are great for discovering tricks and forced variations that were missed during the game and post-mortem analysis. But the post-mortem will teach you at least as much as you are being forced to use your own mind and not just checking things through with a computer. It depends on whether you want to improve as a player practically, or are looking for the most objective truth about the game you played.

qpawn
28-03-2006, 11:06 AM
I don't agree that a post-mortem with a COMPUTER IS A bad thing. I often diagree with Fritz and say so in my annotations.

qpawn
28-03-2006, 05:29 PM
There are other benefits to annotating one's own games. But I will leave it to the perceptive among you to nut those out :evil:

Carl Gorka
28-03-2006, 06:16 PM
I don't agree that a post-mortem with a COMPUTER IS A bad thing. I often diagree with Fritz and say so in my annotations.

It can be a bad thing if the computer is doing the work for you. Computers are great tools and can often correct players in their analysis. But it is all too easy to get lazy and let the computer do all the work. That is why I believe that an immediate post game analysis is of most benefit to a player. Sure, then go home and check your ideas on your computer, but make sure you have some ideas before touching the thing.

Chat
10-08-2006, 04:26 AM
Never, I couldn't be stuffed doing it - thus, I don't think it helps my chess. Better to learn from getting beaten too many times in the same ways during friendly matches than to write it down and clot the mind with things that are hard to remember :doh:

ElevatorEscapee
11-08-2006, 09:57 PM
Never, I couldn't be stuffed doing it - thus, I don't think it helps my chess. Better to learn from getting beaten too many times in the same ways during friendly matches than to write it down and clot the mind with things that are hard to remember :doh:

And thus it came to pass that Chat got beaten many times, (some would say, unecessarily), by many of the other players at the Club.

Chat learned only a little from (his/her) repeated mistakes in friendly games, and repeated those mistakes often.

New members joined the club, and soon learned how to beat Chat.

The club members all agreed that it was a good thing for them that they had a member such as Chat who couldn't be stuffed writing the moves down... As he/she seldolm learnt anything from his/her often repeated mistakes which could easily be taken advantage of.

Chat was an absolute boon for the development of chess in the club!

Every club needs a Chat! :)

Garvinator
12-08-2006, 04:05 PM
so what you are saying ee is that each club needs more chat :P

Chat
12-08-2006, 11:15 PM
the strongest man, in mind or in body, is he who has felt his weaknesses the most.

MichaelBaron
13-08-2006, 02:51 AM
Unfortunately Chat's approach is typical for many australian club players. They keep making the same mistakes all over again. In fact even some chess coaches do not analize their own games and do not look out for improvements.

I can recall playing a certain person who is now a well-known junior coach in Melbourne. Every time he was getting inferior position with white after about 10 moves or so....It lasted 5 games in a row...After this, that person retired from competitive chess to focus on his coaching activites.

I found it very funny that a coach is training others to overcome weaknesses in their play, while he is not able even to attempt to do something about his own weaknesses :hmm:

Chat
13-08-2006, 11:05 PM
it's like building a muscle - you've got to apply stress and feel it's weakness before u can build it. it's a compromise of immediate stress for lasting improvements.

if you play and play in a spontaneous manor until your weaknesses have been routed out from your fast game, you will be better for it in the end, especially in a clocked game where u can push the pace and influence mistakes in the opponent.

:owned:

MichaelBaron
15-08-2006, 03:57 AM
it's like building a muscle - you've got to apply stress and feel it's weakness before u can build it. it's a compromise of immediate stress for lasting improvements.

if you play and play in a spontaneous manor until your weaknesses have been routed out from your fast game, you will be better for it in the end, especially in a clocked game where u can push the pace and influence mistakes in the opponent.

:owned:

hm...Good Luck:doh:

qpawn
15-08-2006, 06:20 PM
Correspondence chess is better for improving the thoroughness of your game annotations.

Chat
15-08-2006, 06:48 PM
what is correspondence chess?

(i'm new to that term)

:uhoh:

ER
16-08-2006, 01:38 AM
what is correspondence chess?

(i'm new to that term)

:uhoh:
G'day Chat, nice to see the forum attracting international attention! What d' you think about the Ashes tho?
Ops sorry I forgot this is all about Chess! :)
Cheers and good luck

qpawn
16-08-2006, 11:06 AM
Correspondence chess is chess played by post, email etc in which both players have the right to move the pieces around the book and consult any books, databses and so on.

Games take a long time but the quality of the games is often higher than what can be done in time-limited events.

MichaelBaron
16-08-2006, 11:54 AM
what is correspondence chess?

(i'm new to that term)

:uhoh:

"Correspondence Chess" refers to writing letters to chess players worldwide;) . Every time you recieve such a letter, copy it and sent it to another 30 chess players. If you do so, you will have a long, happy and prosperous life. If not, you may be in grave danger:whistle:

qpawn
16-08-2006, 03:31 PM
Chat, the above counsel and advice is to be taken at your own risk. Baron accepts absolutely no responsibility for the postage charges accrued by you or your correspondence chess opponents. In the unfortunate event that you use any aspect of the Russian postal service a certain Igor Goldenberg may help you avoid long delays for a modest fee.


:D

MichaelBaron
16-08-2006, 06:17 PM
Chat, the above counsel and advice is to be taken at your own risk. Baron accepts absolutely no responsibility for the postage charges accrued by you or your correspondence chess opponents. In the unfortunate event that you use any aspect of the Russian postal service a certain Igor Goldenberg may help you avoid long delays for a modest fee.


:D
:D

Chat
17-08-2006, 02:57 AM
well, if i played a game of this "correspondence chess" then i would expect the other person to cheat, because i wouldn't be able to resist the temptation either. i'd start by finding an ultimate computer game to consult for every move :clap:

as for the ashes... it's cricket i think, but i don't keep up with the results :lol:

qpawn
19-08-2006, 04:33 PM
Nobody who understands the limitations of computers will cheat in correspondence chess by using one.

Chat
19-08-2006, 09:01 PM
well, i understand the limitations of computers, and i understand human error too, so i would certainly consider consulting the machines to at least see what they might come up with :lol:

have you never found a computer game that's hard to beat, qpawn?

likesforests
23-08-2006, 03:31 AM
I began analyzing my games about ten games ago, and it helps to pinpoint your most common mistakes. For example, I learned I need to focus on time management more than tactical puzzles.

I publish my thoughts on each game on my blog and don't mind discussing them. I've never advertised it to my opponents, but perhaps I should. It would push me to be more thorough in my analysis.

Javier Gil
26-09-2006, 12:19 PM
In my game against Eddy Levi in last Vic championship we had 4 (four!) international masters looking at the game (as well as yours truly and Eddy) and nobody noticed simple (but quite elegant and unusual) combination that would finish the game in a couple of moves.

Can we see the game, Igor? :)