Monday, June 26, 2006

Game Annotation

Ashish reminded me how important it is to analyze your own games.

I selected this game to annotate although it was G/30. because it was against a Master and I enjoy playing the endgame. I also like to look at the relationship between Bishops and Knights.

Ashish also adviced me not to use Fritz to analye. I am going to have a hard time doing that. Playing a game of chess is like taking a multiple choice test every time it is your move. After a game I find it very hard not to "check" my answers using Fritz. I used to rely on Fritz only for analysis, but I now force myself to do my own analysis and then use Fritz.

Alex Betaneli (2302) vs Me (1800)

Comments/Advice welcome.


  1. Congrats on following through and analyzing this game. I might have played some moves differently, but it certainly seems to me that Black played with a coherent plan, which is better than most 1800 players. (Though - was the N and isolated P really better than the B?) What did your opponent, much higher rated than either of us, think of the game? After game analysis is where some of the best learning happens, IMHO.

    Now to analyse each and every one of your games (especially losses) in as much (or more) detail, and identify the exact point when your position is worse, and when it is lost. That will be a wonderful learning exercise!

    As a 2000 player, I find that most of my games are decided by the "last blunder," rather than by positional excellence on either side. But what leads us to make those blunders?!


  2. In my first lesson with GM Novikov last evening, he advocated the same exercise for me: to analyze my games to better undertsnad my mistakes and recognize problems with my chess thinking.

    It is nice to see another devotee of the 3...Qd6 line of the Scandinavian. I have Martin's DVD of that line as well and really enjoy his presentations. I also picked up the book "Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic 3...Qd6" by Michael Melts for deeper analysis of the line. I believe GM Tiviakov has used this line in a few recent tournaments, even beating Gata Kamsky with it.

  3. I gotta disagree with Gad (although probably not GM Novikov) on one point - anyone under 2200 should be spending much more time on endings, positional play, and tactics, and close to zero effort on opening theory.

  4. Oh, I do not spend much time on opening theory, as most very strong players suggest for 1600's like myself. I simply became curious about that variation from Martin's DVD and wanted to see more about it, especially how Black plays in the middle game. I agree with the point that endings and middle game play are more important.

  5. Ivan, have you looked at Michael Melts' book on the d6 Scandinavian. I thumbed through it in a book store and it looked pretty good. Nice seeing you in Joliet.

  6. I didn't know about Michael Melt's book until Gad talked about it. Looks like it will be a good book to get. Nice seeing you too. How about the Minnesota tournament July 15-16