@FischyVishy said in #16:
> Hi, thanks for your comments, quite a lot to think about!
>
> 1) I know I go against the trend here, but I like adding annotations to every single move. I don't like when I'm reading annotations and I don't know what the evaluation of the position is supposed to be. Even if there's only one single move, adding the "!" is descriptive. I tried to avoid doing that for super obvious moves, recaptures, or only legal moves, but 34...Kxb2 is kind of the culmination of all of Black's efforts, so it felt necessary to give it the "!". 17...Qd7 and 17...Qd5 deserve an exclamation mark; why do they not? Move 18 also is a good move; yes, there are other good moves, but that doesn't mean the move itself isn't good. I interpret "!" literally: either the move is good or not. It doesn't have to be "Chess Informant" style.
>
> 2) You definitely have a point there. The 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. e5 Scotch Gambit move order arrives at the game continuation, but one could argue as you did that it's not a proper Scotch Gambit.
>
> 3) For the symbols, I add my own human assessment. I'm not a superGM, so in many cases my human assessment may be completely off, but in general it should give some guidance on how easy a position is to play. Both examples you gave I think are much easier to play for Black, that's why I went for "slightly better assessment + human assessment of easier to play for Black = better for Black".
>
> 4) Lol, point taken on the hyper-excitement. For the desperado, I'm using the chess tactic definition, which is when a piece is going to be lost, it does one last capture before it's taken. Here opening up the g7 square, which the queen later made use of, is a good idea I thought.
>
> 5) That's a very nice line with 29. Kh1 vs. 29. Kh2. I've elected not to add it because I already cover another winning move, 29. Rf4, but your 29. Kh1 definitely should have been mentioned.
>
> 6) For 31. b4+ vs. 31. b3, I avoided mentioning 31. b3 because 31. b4+ is just more forcing.
bro u did a good job i liked this game very much it is very intresting with the commentary also
@icytease said in #12:
> Very exciting game, albeit full of silliness :3
>
> The commentator got a little too carried away with the excitement I think, and riddled almost every move with exclamation marks... definitely wayyy too many, lol. The final move of the game is marked as 34... Kxb2! with an exclamation mark -- it's literally the *only legal move*. I get that the game was enjoyed, and definitely lot of fun lines. Exclam should be reserved for moves that stand out, and not for when three moves do the job just fine (this happens a lot throughout the annotations). Example are the alternative notes to Black's 17th move (for 17...Qd7 or 17...Qd5), or White's 18th, where either knight could hop into e4 just fine, with their own ideas. The g5-knight leaving , after all, stops the exchange sac motif.
>
> That being said, the annotator did provide many fun lines that were enjoyable to play through! Just a lot less marks, please :3
>
> As an aside, I consider the opening the Two Knight's Defense. I'm kinda surprised that Lichess has marked this as Scotch Gambit. If White had gone 5. O-O instead, then that's where I call it the Scotch gambit, inviting both 5...Nxe4 (accepted) or 5...Bc5 (Max Lange attack). 5. e5 , on the other hand, is just a different line in the two knight's where nothing is gambited usually. 5. e5 d5 6. Bb5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 Bd7 -- material equality.
>
> Btw, when Black is only slightly better, perhaps between between 0.0 and -0.5 , let's say, you should put the equals sign above the plus, like so (for some reason the mark isn't showing up in this forum post) www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+2A71 . When it's more of an edge, continuing from the previous point to almost winning, that's when you put a minus sign above ∓ (example range -0.6 to -1.0, but perhaps even deeper). And ya, when "winning", and this is subjective, that's when they're side by side horizontally -+ . Some might consider at least -1.5 to be a general guideline for winning, like one-and-a-half pawns equivalent. In one example line, commentator ends it with "18.Kg3!! ∓" , but black is only very slightly better and it should be an equals sign . After White's 14th move, there's a long line that ends in an endgame with "26.Rxe3∓" and again this should just be .
>
> The excitement goes off the rails later on too, chaotic annotations paired with chaotic game. It's almost like you're shooting an action scene with a super jumpy camera on purpose, to make the audience motion-sick so that they can "feel" the action better. Sure, sometimes this can work, but in small quantities! How is White's 22nd a "clever desperado"? White is winning, and this is one of two moves that keeps the winning edge. Desperado should be reserved for desperate moments when in a worse position.
>
> No discussion on the nuances of White's 29th move Kh2. Sure, 29.Rf4 does win. But 29.Kh1 hxg5 30.Rce1 Kb4 31.Qc3+ Kxa4 32.Re5 is possible because 32...Rh8+ has 33.Bh2. The game's move, 29.Kh1 makes the same 32. Re5 move later scarier and drawish -- 32...Rh8+ forces 33.Bh4 Qxe5+ with a complicated by equal resolution.
>
> In the notes of White's 31st move, again two moves are winning (31.b4+ or 31.b3), with the same idea of freeing the b2 square, making the b-file unsafe, etc., as discussed in the comments, but the first is given an exclamation mark for some reason o.O What about 31.b3 Qxb3 32.Qe5+ Kb4 33.Be1+ Kxa4 34.Ra1+
>
> It's still a GOTM and entertaining, so thanks for choosing it. I just wish the commentary wouldnt unwind into the realm of insanity, becoming as silly as the sequences from the game itself, as that ruined my immersion.
I died of reading ur comment
@Rabbit_on_theViolin said in #22:
> I died of reading ur comment
I know right?
They always pick the bad games. But, this time they gave the prize for a worthy one. But, still, there are better games.
These games are really low quality
nice game
@Minor_Threat_1982 said in #20:
> Even Top Level GM's (Magnus, Nakamura, etc.) Have Inaccuracies and 'blunders' when they are under time constraints. If you look at the time remaining during this game, it appears that both players played decently well,
> @TheUnknownPlay If you have a better game of your own (not necessarily for the month of February) I'd love for you to share it so we can comment on your 'perfect play'
> This game is great because of the King Walk AND Blacks moderate disregard for material compensation as the game progresses.
>
> Final Thought
> Good chess isn't just about avoiding blunders. If it were, why not just study the games the top engines play? (AlphaZero Vs. Stockfish Etc.)
Yes GM's have blundered mate in 1 (a famous one being Hans Niemann vs Ian Nepomniachtchi) but it they have blundered only once in those games but here both of them blundered several times that was enough to finish the games. Example : 30.Rf7?? Qc4?? and 10. hxg4?? (because of white's piece inactivity). And by the way keep in mind that white is 2400 rated and black is 2000 rated. This game was won by sheer luck. The GM's fight for control of their game every match. And the game is great cuz of the king walk? the king walk is the literal thing that bugs me off. The opponent literally allowed him to do that.
@TheUnknownPlay I agree with a lot of your sentiment, and enjoy your reply. BUT with time constraints, chess is a different beast. We must acknowledge that part of the (perceived) weakness of these moves is due to the time left on the clock.
The other weakness, simply player talent level. Your talent level is probably too high for these games.
If these games of the month were compiled into a series, I don't think the vast majority of strong GM's would be interested in reviewing them. Wouldn't someone of that caliber be better off watching Agadamator or Finegold review: Carlsen, Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, Petrosian, Tal, Morphy, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Poeagevsky, Lasker, Keres, Nepo, So, Nakamura, Alehkine, Capablanca, Pillsbury, Polgar, Anand Marshall, and the other 20 or so greatest players to ever lived? Their body of work is so voluminous, why even look at these Lichess games of the month?
@Minor_Threat_1982 said in #28:
> @TheUnknownPlay I agree with a lot of your sentiment, and enjoy your reply. BUT with time constraints, chess is a different beast. We must acknowledge that part of the (perceived) weakness of these moves is due to the time left on the clock.
>
> The other weakness, simply player talent level. Your talent level is probably too high for these games.
>
> If these games of the month were compiled into a series, I don't think the vast majority of strong GM's would be interested in reviewing them. Wouldn't someone of that caliber be better off watching Agadamator or Finegold review: Carlsen, Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, Petrosian, Tal, Morphy, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Poeagevsky, Lasker, Keres, Nepo, So, Nakamura, Alehkine, Capablanca, Pillsbury, Polgar, Anand Marshall, and the other 20 or so greatest players to ever lived? Their body of work is so voluminous, why even look at these Lichess games of the month?
We look at these lichess GOTM’s cuz it shows the players whose games are epic and brilliant (a good king attack maybe). And my talent level is too high for these games? Oh come on, even a unrated who knows the game well(in terms of Fide rating system) can play well than these two.