moonbus–Gengistiger RHP 2013-14
What’s the reason I recommend playing through moonbus’s annotation? (Besides the fact that I’m not trying to steal his work.) The difference between our annotations.
Opening name _______________Opening move explanations
Important transition points –––––––––Reasons behind important moves
Evaluation at crucial point ––––––––––Minimal evaluation
Explanation of many endgame decisions ––Bad moves–Better moves
Overall, I am more critical of the players involved (which makes sense, moonbus played the game) and I provide less evaluations than explanations of specific moves. Moonbus is also more opening-focused.
Here is the relevant part of an interesting Morphy game:
Paul Morphy–Aureliano Medina Havana 1862
Morphy casually sacrifices the exchange to exploit the weakened dark squares. The weak color complex does Black in. An exquisite finish!
HikaruShindo ––––––––––––––––––––––Chessgames.com People
Explanations of a few moves –––––––––––––Why black is lost
Periodic overall evaluation –––––––––––Pun discussion
Occasional move recommendations ––––––Move recommendations
Aesthetics commentary –––––––––––––––––Aesthetics commentary
The chessgames.com annotations are generally more colorful, but more analytical, with more variations calculated out.
Overall, the difference between annotators is striking in both cases. Interesting, isn’t it?