Annotating Your Games

Alexander Kotov, in his book,"Train Like A Grandmaster" wrote,"A considerable part in chess coaching in the USSR is played by writing notes to games. The best notes are published in magazines and newspapers, but this is not the main aim. A developing player has to write notes to his games in order to develop the habit of having a self-critical approach to his play. By spotting the flaws in his play, he will more easily eradicate them."

But what kind of game annotations are required?

I found that with the rise in complexity of the silicon chip and computer chess programs, quite often, some of us are happy to let their favourite chess engine analyse their games and be done with it. Let the program run overnight with a top chess engine and by the morning, a fairly detailed analysis of the game is there, ready for you to peruse (Incidentally, imagine how much more accessible chess is now compared with 15 years ago, where to do this equivalent amount of work will require a team of GM analysts working overnight, and an updated book on openings).

However, it is not enough to just let the chess engine annotate.

Kotov in his book, goes to list 4 main type of annotations:

1. Descriptive notes
2. Analytical comments
3. Positional comments
4. Synthetic comments

Let's here what Kotov says about them:

1. Descriptive notes

"Here the commentator writes out all the moves and then puts down an extended prose description of the course of the game. He notes the turning points in the battle and assesses the accuracy of the ideas shown. Such a verbal account devotes a lot of attention to the psychology of the struggle and the attitudes of the players. Actual variations may be totally absent or are restricted to just a few moves at certain points."

2. Analytical comments

[NB: I've omitted his comments here because they are outdated. Kotov mentions about having to need all the notes consisting of a mass of variations ala Chess Informant style. Thankfully, these days, powerful computer chess programs like Fritz can easily do the job for you in a matter of minutes.]

3. Positional comments

"....The commentator gives a limited number of variations, only using them to underline his view of the game and the value of the plans adopted. It is somewhat reminiscent of method 1 but the prose is not collected together, rather it is spread out throughout the game. This was the method adopted by many great players - Steinitz, Tarrasch, Lasker and Capablanca. Nowadays too it is favoured method among those grandmasters whose play is marked by a depth of strategy and logic...."

4. Synthetic comments

"This method of explaining a game combines both many deep variations and verbal descriptions of strategic ideas. The world of chess has come to recognise this method as best, and it is no accident that its principal exponent, Alekhine, was recognised in his time as the best annotator living." [NB:....and here Kotov goes on to list some works as excellent synthetic work as Bronstein's 1953 Candidates Match Tournament in Switzerland. It is true indeed till this very day. For example, the picture on the right shows Dutch GM Van Wely's own annotations of his game with input from Ftacnik.]

My favourite annotation format falls in an amalgam of all of the above and is probably in the last category. Immediately after a game, I input various notes and comments ala Method 1 and try to recreate as much as possible of the atmosphere surrounding the game and my thoughts. From then on, I go to method 3, stopping at particular points of a game to highlight my thoughts,variations and suggestions. Once all of this is done, I let the chess engine take over looking for where I deviate from book theory and side lines/variations and last but not least blunder-check.

It is hard work indeed to constantly annotate your own games. Unfortunately, if you really wish to improve your chess skills, this is one step you can ill afford to avoid.