Keeping track of positions

Playing through GM games with long annotations is both fascinating and difficult. For example, you're on move 26 of a game and the author goes into a deep analysis of the position up to move 34, backs up to move 31 then goes into another deep analysis up to move 37; this continues for 3-4 more lines of analysis then the game continues on from the original move 26. How does one keep track of what the correct position was on move 26? I've tried using the position set up feature on other sites, and they work OK, but having my computer, chess book and board all on the same table is bulky, difficult and time consuming. How do you folks navigate this situation?

Regarding analysis;

'If it's long, it's wrong' I think Bent Larsen said that.

Implying there will be a mistake in there, a missed shot, an unsound idea…
Keep it short and if possible use words. Even then some lulus still appeared.
I am of course talking about the Chess B.C (before computers.)

Of course these day the long won’t be wrong as it’s computer vomit so that case;
‘if it’s long...you’ve been conned’ I said that.

Authors like to keep their machine running till it comes up with a genuine +-
that is why you get, and they get away with, pages full of gunk. (which nobody plays
over anyway...it’s too long.)

Most books have diagrams, Diagrams are there to aid the reader.
After you have gone over the analysis which if the writer is good ,
will be there for a reason, go back to the diagram and re-set the pieces.

Or if is it is under 20-30 moves start the whole game again quickly getting to where you left off
(it’s what I did..still do.) you get a refresher on the way and it must help in getting ideas to sink in.

Some advocate using two boards. This is never worked for me, you end up with pieces
all over the place and I found it unenjoyable.

Edit: I have never tried to follow a game via computer screen onto a board.
If I want to look at it properly or am going to use it I print out the game (or if my
brain allows it these days, memorise it) and transfer it to a board.

@mchill said
Playing through GM games with long annotations is both fascinating and difficult. For example, you're on move 26 of a game and the author goes into a deep analysis of the position up to move 34, backs up to move 31 then goes into another deep analysis up to move 37; this continues for 3-4 more lines of analysis then the game continues on from the original move 26. How does one ...[text shortened]... on the same table is bulky, difficult and time consuming. How do you folks navigate this situation?

The way you improve in chess is to work stuff out in your head. If youre having trouble understanding a position at least spend a few days with it before you pull out the board and engines.

Find chess books that are a little above your ability so you can focus and learn.
Going over Grandmaster games and the subsequent analysis is only good for people 2000 and above.
Learn to walk before you try running.

@lip said
Find chess books that are a little above your ability so you can focus and learn.
Going over Grandmaster games and the subsequent analysis is only good for people 2000 and above.
Learn to walk before you try running.

@shallow-blue said
I'm merely a wood pusher. I can not keep a position in my head. (Well, sometimes I can. But those are exceptions.)

Therefore, I have a back-up board, and a plastic magnet board as a back-up for the back-up. I put up the starting position on the back-up board, and play through the variations on my main board; and when I want to go back to the base position, I copy it ...[text shortened]... back-up board. And sometimes, but rarely, I do that two levels down. I've never needed three levels.

A related question is to how to think about the analysis while the reader is playing through it. One possibility (which I realize might not work for everyone or even the majority of readers) is the following:

1. Pause briefly after each move to decide whether the reader would have at least considered it, or if it makes sense even though the reader wouldn't have considered it. If either is the case, continue playing through the analysis; otherwise proceed to step 2.
2. If the move is mystifying, then make a quick note (perhaps by writing a dot or other symbol in the book where the move is) and then continue playing through the analysis.
3. After finishing the analysis, revisit each mystifying move and decide whether its purpose was clarified in the subsequent analysis.
4. After playing through the entire game, revisit the moves that were still mystifying, to see whether the game continuation clarified them.
5. If any moves remain mystifying at this point, they might warrant further examination.

@fmdavidhlevin said
A related question is to how to think about the analysis while the reader is playing through it. One possibility (which I realize might not work for everyone or even the majority of readers) is the following:

1. Pause briefly after each move to decide whether the reader would have at least considered it, or if it makes sense even though the reader wouldn't have cons ...[text shortened]... fied them.
5. If any moves remain mystifying at this point, they might warrant further examination.