It is interesting to compare the notes by different analysts to the same game. At the highest levels this is often possible, as the games from the Super GM tournaments are published by numerous publications, often with notes from different analysts. Of course, this takes some effort by readers to search out the games and do the comparison between publications. Another fascinating example is on National Master Randy Bauer's web pages. After preparing his own notes to one of his better games, NM Bauer submitted his game vs. IM Mike Brooks to GM Alex Yermolinsky for his comments. Bauer went on to add his new notes based on what Yermo said about the game. This is truly fascinating chess reading.

There's no need to let the Big Guys have all the fun, however. When both participants in a game contribute notes there are often some additional insights concerning not only the game but the players as well. I encourage cc competitors to repeat the experiment described below. One of my early chess heroes GM Mikhail Botvinnik recommended that a competitor should submit his notes to games for publication and public scrutiny if he wants to improve. I usually annotate only my wins and occasionally my draws vs. stronger players. It's a better idea to annotate losses as well in order to understand your errors and to improve your play. One way to force yourself to spend the time needed to annotate your losses is to commit yourself to doing so before the game is finished. You might even be inspired to keep unusually good notes during the game anticipating your later work. Not only will you be able to improve your own play by examining your mistakes more carefully, but the readers should find the game unusually entertaining and educational, with the benefit of the insights of both players. There may be some unintended humor as well!

Following is a game played during the American Postal Chess Tournaments semi-annual team championship the 1991 APCT Regional Team Championship. My board 6 opponent Stephen F. Collins and I agreed during the early stages of our game to both independently prepare annotations to our game and combine them after the game was over. I combined these notes and published the complete game with notes in my team newsletter (it was later reprinted in Jon Voth's games column in APCT News Bulletin). Reference is made to Tom Purser's BDG World magazine. If you find the BDG interesting, check out his very interesting web site: Tom Purser's Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Pages

Campbell 2153 (Dixie team) - Collins, Stephen 2035 (Atlantic team) [A03]
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (Ryder Gambit)
APCT 91RT-6 Regional Team Championship, 1992
Collins' notes are indicated by -SC.
Campbell's notes are in italics and are indicated by -JFC.
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Qxf3 [Perhaps more natural is 5. Nxf3. But the Queen and eventually the Queen Bishop will bear down on Black's queenside pawns. - SC / The BDG Ryder Gambit. 5. Nxf3 is probably sounder but leads into better known lines of play. Tom Purser's BDG World magazine is highly recommended to those interested in delving into this complex gambit. - JFC] 5...g6 6.Bf4 Bg7 7.h3 0-0 8.0-0-0 Re8 9.Bc4 a6 [To prevent 10. Nb5 when the attack on Black's queenside would be overwhelming. - SC] 10.g4 [White's position looks promising with good piece development and a K-side attack brewing. But is it worth a pawn? - JFC] 10...Nc6 11.g5 [The attack begins. If 1. ... Nh5 either 12. Bxc7 or 12. Bxf7+ look good. - JFC] 11...Nxd4 [This is the counterplay I had in mind when I played 10. ... Nc6 anticipating White's g5. - SC / Well played. Black has accepted the loss of a piece and goes after compensation. - JFC] 12.Qf2 e5 13.gxf6 Qxf6