Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member ivan2908
    SelfProclaimedTitler
    31 Jan '07 11:41
    I will start to annotate my games played here, I think it can influence on playing more serious games. Since I am reading "Amateurs mind" by Jeremy Silman, I'll do that by noticing and trying to exploit seven imbalances in every position (bishops and knights interplay, space, pawn structure, material, files and squares, development, initiative). Also, before every move I'll check for hung pieces, undefended pieces, possible checks and potential for tactics.

    Can you share with me your experiences regarding this self annotations? What is your way, and did it help you to achieve better results, and deeper understanding of game?

    Thanks
  2. Standard member sydsad
    Poet
    31 Jan '07 12:11
    Great Idea!

    I have tried (1 game!) something similar in my humble ways. Please share your ideas/reflections on how it has improved your game.
  3. 31 Jan '07 12:17
    Self-annotation is a good idea.. because you sometimes realise how weird your own explanations are, or how vague your reasons for a particular decision were. It somehow teaches you to have an honest and clear "inner dialogue" when you are at the board.
  4. Standard member ivan2908
    SelfProclaimedTitler
    31 Jan '07 12:42
    Thanks for your opinions guys, anyone else tried to do that in order to improve?!
  5. Standard member onyx2006
    onyx2007
    31 Jan '07 12:52 / 1 edit
    I tend to review my games and criticise/comment on them as if they were someone elses. It's weird, but it works for me. I'm also a part time music producer, If I've got a track made - i'll listen to/review it as if someone else done it and try nit-pick at it's faults, I then go fix these things. The same goes for my games, I dunno - I just find that I spot more mistakes that way...

    EDIT: just wish I had the time & interest to do it more often, i tend to leave dead games buried.
  6. Standard member Redmike
    Godless Commie
    31 Jan '07 13:30
    I find that the problem is that I'm keen to review and annotate the games which I won well.

    While this has some value, often it is just an excercise in self-congratulation.

    More valuable, IMO, is to do this with games you didn't win.
  7. Standard member onyx2006
    onyx2007
    31 Jan '07 13:39
    Originally posted by Redmike
    I find that the problem is that I'm keen to review and annotate the games which I won well.

    While this has some value, often it is just an excercise in self-congratulation.

    More valuable, IMO, is to do this with games you didn't win.
    of course, there's no point in patting yourself on the back.
  8. 31 Jan '07 13:49
    Originally posted by ivan2908
    Great idea. And relating it to your reading of Silman, etc. sounds good too.

    However, in addition to comments about imbalances, etc. encourage your own independent thought processes too. i.e. Silman himself no doubt followed other people’s advice, but it didn’t stop him forming his “system of imbalances”. So, let Silman etc. give you a framework to work with, but don’t let this confine your thoughts about a given position. Sometimes we get to understand something more when we have to explain it in our own terms/words, and chess is no exception.