chess strategies

Chess Strategies

Share and you will reveal!
Funny name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
zhnkiu 12 ( +1 | -1 )
how to annotate i'm noticing that few annotations are getting star-ratings higher than two, so what deserves a high rating?
zhnkiu 11 ( +1 | -1 )
(this is more a question about annotation in general, rather than the rating process, i think)
bloedeter 5 ( +1 | -1 )
simple The more interesting a game is, the better the rating.
far1ey 20 ( +1 | -1 )
An interesting game and good annotations. Players who read the annotation are trying to improve their chess so good annotations on how to play in certain situations or play an opening right are helpful.
zhnkiu 13 ( +1 | -1 )
i see... so a good rating is a measure of reader interest...

in terms of syntax, what might a good annotation look like?
far1ey 26 ( +1 | -1 )
I think another thing about annotations is being confident in your analysis. Many annotations (just go and have a look yourself) have "I didnt know what to do here" or "I think this is good but I am not sure". Confidence is everything...
bloedeter 29 ( +1 | -1 )
a good annotation would be an annotation with very good players who are not even at GK with their best game and with a good annotation. You can filter the annotations with how much stars you want. Look at all the annotations with 4.5 stars, and then you can see what makes a good annotation.
ionadowman 153 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes ... and then again, no ... ... Sometimes it would be kinda nice to get some feedback on unclear positions. Is there such a facility (yet) on GK, where you can add to someone else's annotations? I can see how such a thing might easily be abused (you do get some bizarre types playing chess), but given the goodwill, it might be informative and educational. So expressing some doubt about the position is fair enough. Even Alekhine used to make mistakes in his annotations (check out Freddy Reinfeld on that topic!).

And here's this from J.R.Capablanca, no less. He was following this line of the Ruy Lopez (in his "Last Lectures") - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Be7 10.Nbd2 Nc5 11.Bc2 d4 12.Ne4 dxc3 13.Nxc5 Bxc5 14.Be4 Qe7 15.bxc3 Rd8 16.Qxd7+ Bxd7 17.Rd1 ...
According to the great man, this prevents Black's castling on account of 17...0-0? 18.Rxd7 Rxd7 19.Bxc6 "with advantage". The sapient reader will have noticed that 19... Rd1+ goes a long way towards offsetting that advantage! Perhaps he intended White to insert 18.Bg5 first?

I think the multi-star ratings are due to more than the annotations themselves (which might be informative or entertaining, or both) but also to the choice of game and the quality of play. Everyone has different tastes in annotation style. I like the game to seem like a story. Others prefer a more analytical style. To each his own.

Personally, I haven't figured out how to use the voting system on these, so haven't expressed my own opinion.
sf115 17 ( +1 | -1 )
I've notited that annotations by Gary Kasparov are much better than an average IM. This shows that some annotators are better than others
tag1153 51 ( +1 | -1 )
ion I agree with the "story telling" preference you mentioned. Since my own analytical skills are laughable at best, I try to entertain the reader with the circumstances surrounding the game. The reader seems to enjoy this style, and I have been fortunate enough to receive "good marks" on the games I have annotated. With the addition of the new "comments" feature, I'm suddenly motivated to post more games:) See you at the annotation table!

ionadowman 26 ( +1 | -1 )
Cheers, Thomas... ... speaking of which, I've made a few comments on your "Royal Fork Mate" game that you might want to look at. I haven't always agreed with your remarks, but ... see what you think.
Interesting game. Neat finish.
tag1153 34 ( +1 | -1 )
Thx ion.... ....I merely glanced at the game in question, and will study your alternatives at a later date. Pretty cool feature eh? Players like myself will now be able to learn more easily from stronger players such as yourself:)

solohawk6_9 29 ( +1 | -1 )
i prefer annotations from players that not only include the main lines...but method of thought too. its the reasoning that makes the differance! any computer can annotate a game and be almost perfect everytime...i wanna hear/see the whys and hows of an annotation...thats how i rate'em anyway :)
ionadowman 60 ( +1 | -1 )
Good point solohawk6_9 ... ... Annotations that limit themselves just to concrete analysis can seem extraordinariliy dry. In many situations the choice of move is dictated by general considerations, there being no tactics available. Endgames can be like that.
It's not a bad idea also to talk about how the game seems (or seemed) at the moment - I've had several games in which I thought I had a big edge, only to discover several moves later that the enemy had sufficient resources to draw... In other games, the outlook might seem bleak, but contain enough resources to make life difficult for one's opponent...
raskerino 54 ( +1 | -1 )
I think neverwinlibra has done two excellent annotations. They're fun to read, the thoughts are clear, the opening theory is reasonably deep (I can't judge the najdorf one, but the dragon one was good), and there are a good number of interesting variations given, though the focus is the ideas. I've also liked Ethansiegel's annotations a lot and I think the slavia heinzkat game is incredible, and has a good annotation (by heinzkat). I think the best thing you can do is find annotators you like and look at what they do well. Of course, good games, and interesting ideas help a ton.
far1ey 131 ( +1 | -1 )
Then there are these annotations:

[Event ""]
[Site "->
[Date "?"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Miles Davis"]
[Black "Paul McCartney"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo ""]
[BlackElo ""]
[TimeControl "infinity"]

1. e4 {a terrible move.} e5 {even worse} 2. Qh5 {What an amazing queen
sortie! White calculated very deeply here...} Nc6 {Black should have played
Nh6.} 3. Qxf7+ {Black resigns.} 1-0

I give praise to the annotater of this game for his in depth thought into the game.


On a brighter note I agree that a simple analysis annotation is downright boring and bringing some more 'worded' annotations (or jokes as in Thomas's case :D) is a better way to win the audience. Also having a theme is useful like "sacing everything" or "how to play the sicilian" is good so that at the end the reader can come away with something learnt rather than an old game which will be soon forgotten. neverwinlibra has done some interesting annotations on the dragon as well as yours, raskerino on the complicated Botvinnik variation of the Slav.
I find the best way to study an opening can be reading annotations to find out some ideas from key games so you can employ them in your own games... Just a thought....

ccmcacollister 63 ( +1 | -1 )
Annotating ... Some things I grade down for:
1) Making incorrect remarks about strategy/positional concepts
2) Failing to remark about a significant resource missed by opponent that would have altered ones brilliant combination or outcome, etc.
3) Similarly, failing to note that one might have lost material vs better play
4) Being very ungracious to the opponent's self or play
5) A game that is devoid of interest, even as an example of concepts or teaching a novice player, or even just showing how terribly a game can be played, but is merely an annotative exercise lacking wit or substance ...
ccmcacollister 24 ( +1 | -1 )
PS // What I DO like:
Games that ...
1) Show an improvement or TN
2) Teach aor Entertain
3) Showcase a particularly combinative, brilliant, hardfought, or positionally astute game
4) Do point out some of the annotators thought processes and objectives, aor personality.
5) Humor