Have a look at the following position:

A bit familiar, I'd say.  Yet, in annotating his game vs. Kramnik, from Dortmund 2010, GM Ponomariov wrote an introductory remark of about 110 words (!), saying, in essence, that his recent battles with the same opponent were crucial to the final standing in tournaments.  This comment, even in its shortened version, hardly adds anything of value to readers' knowledge.

This trend of over-annotating, is quite common.  In the same issue of New in Chess from which I lifted the previous game (N. 6/2010), one also finds the game Rodshtein – So, Biel 2010.  After the opening moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6, the young player of the black pieces had this to say:

While preparing for the game it was not easy for me to decide which opening to play… I first considered the Slav, but then I decided that it was too drawish… I thought about the Nimzo… but then he would reply with the Catalan… The King's Indian also looks quite risky, so I decided on the Grunfeld…

One wonders what all this is about.  Surely the author describes a standard deliberation process that every player is going through in his mind before each game…  Why should we be bothered?  What is the extra benefit for the reader from this mumbling?

I believe that a good commentator should step back, letting the reader enjoy the moves.  He should intervene in those positions, and ONLY in those positions in which he feels that the reader would face difficulties in grasping the events without an expert guidance.  If the position is complicated, give us some variations.  If a subtle opening or a delicate ending is being played, lead us through with ideas for both sides.  If a deep positional fight is taking place, remind us of principal battle-plans.

Otherwise, dear annotator, please say nothing and let the chess moves do the work.  Too many explanations just annoy and obscure the picture, rather than make it clearer.

Here is a demonstration:

G. Amann
"Schach" 2009, 1^st prize

White to play and win

1.Nh7! Qe7+  (1…Qg7 or 1…Qh6 leads to mate after 2.Nf6+ Ke7 3.Rd7+ Kf8 4.Rd8+)

2.Kc8 f6! 3.Ng5!!  The obvious 3.N:f6+ Kf8 4.Rd8+ Kg7 5.Rd7 is met with 5…Kh8! 6.R:e7 stalemate.

3…f:g5 4.g4!  Mutual Zugzwang.

4…Kf8 5.Rd8+ Kf7 6.Rd7 and White wins the ensuing pawn ending.

Now, I could have said that the starting position is fresh and economical; that White gains victory in spite of being materially down; and that this is a very beautiful study; but such comments are redundant, because anyone who plays through the solution already knows it.

I could also comment that 2…f6 lays a vicious trap and that 3.Ng5 is a startling and surprising winning move.  But then, again, you already know that.

So, the best thing this annotator can do in presenting such a study, is hold his tongue (his keyboard, actually) and let the self-evident solution speak for itself.  Present the moves, supply some short side lines, and keep silent.

Return to Inside Avni's Mind
 

© 2006-2010 by Amatzia Avni and Chessville

Chessville
logo by
ChessPrints
 

Ranked #1 by Google
"largest chess database''

The
Chessville
Chess Store

The
Chessville
Weekly
Newsletter

Subscribe
Today -
It's Free!!

The
Chessville
Weekly
Archives
 

Advertise
with
Chessville!!

Advertise to
thousands
of chess
fans for
as little
as $25.

Single insert:
$35
x4 insert:
@ $25 each