How to study annotated games?

I have got a lot of annotated games in my 3rd month course as a PDF. Now, the question is, how to study annotated games?

To be more specific, i mean: Do you'll just take a print out of the PDF and go through the positions (as it is)? Or do you'll see it and then try to apply yourself to the same position, and try to find all best moves for that current position?

On an average, how much time should be dedicated to study each annotated games?

I spent probably 15 minutes on each one. I wouldn't spend a lot of time looking at lots of variations, but I did run them through a computer so that when I looked at it and thought something like "why not this or that?" I could play "this or that" and see what was 'wrong' with it.

Thanks BorgQueen, but i am surprised How do you manage to read the entire annotations in only 15 mins. Some are very long indeed

Using the chessbase files cuts a lot of time down -- you can see the exact position for each comment, so it makes a lot more sense to me faster.

15 minutes is an approximation too... games with more notation might take 20 minutes or so and if I struggled to understand some points I would repeat the entire game, so if I did that, I would spend 40 minutes on the one game analysis.

Request the rest of the people too to share their views. It will be helpful for all of us.

I set it up on the board and play around with positions, play Q and A with myself so it took a half hour at least.

To be honest I didn't study them. Instead I read the first 3 Chapters of John Watson Mastering the Chess Openings Volume 1 which talks in depth about structure, pawn chains, doubled pawns,isolated pawns, the light square pawn restraint, space etc etc that make up the defining features of most openings.

The 100 or so pages that comprise the introduction in that book are gold imo.

Then after that I read over the notes from the ICS team relating to plans for each opening type.

I wouldn't spend hours looking over every game unless you really want to. You won't learn much imo, as it's only month 2 and this kind of information really is much more advanced I feel, compared to the teachings of month 3 to 8. As long as your aware of the different types of centres in your own games, and know for example when you are playing a closed position or a static one, rather than an open game, and so develop your pieces and play accordingly that is all you need to know at this stage I feel.

Dumping all that in Month 2 is the equivalent of endgame books featuring how to mate with King, bishop and knight against a lone king or a Queen and King versus a rook and king, in their second chapter. Just too much detail at too early a stage.

Learn how to develop and harmonise your pieces and pawns from months 3-6 before you worry about analysing several hundred games with no annotations!

I would say that stuff would be an excellent resource for later on, but its not something you need to study right away.

I used a database program to scroll through the games quickly, making my own annotations and reviewing the authors comments. Then I ran a quick computer check to see if my comments were off the mark.

Personally, I find it very useful to use the mouse wheel to scroll back and forth over key maneuvers to get a big picture of what's happening.

I made annother post on my approach on the forum with an example of the type of annotations I made. There is overlap with the openings course, so keep the games available if you're also doing the ICS openings.

Thanks to all for sharing, it was really nice and interesting to see how others do the same thing that you are doing too, and in what way. Maybe, we can choose the best one amongst them.

I wish, some more people could share their views on this.

I have been reading through the entire 60 odd ages---now I intend to follow the games as instructed--on a chess board with pieces. I did some part of the test--4 problems yesterday--solved one entirely--2 others I was way off on and was in partially in the vicinity in the last one, (but still wrong.)

Followed the annotated games--3 games, spent about 1 1/2 hours on total

I still have not seen anyone setup a HOUR wise schedule--I know it depends on personal factors etc etc--but most of us are adults with more or less the same attention span etc--should at least have a ball park figure.

I feel that this amount of material needs ( at least for me) a coach to "translate" ICS into "chess for dummies" for my level--sort of like a coach who who would over the material with me for the "aha moments". Any one else feels the same??--and if so--what have you done about it?.

Aries1 wrote: Any one else feels the same??--and if so--what have you done about it?.

Started this forum

Write out summaries of each major theory article and post them here hoping for good discussion. Sometimes, get it.

Blue Devil Knight wrote:

Aries1 wrote: Any one else feels the same??--and if so--what have you done about it?.

Started this forum

Write out summaries of each major theory article and post them here hoping for good discussion. Sometimes, get it.

Another positive about the board as well (kudos to BDK) is that people here list supplemental material that you can study in order to reinforce or help understand the main course...especially helpful is the info from the veterans who seem to come back and say, "aha now in month 3 month 2 makes sense." Remember it is a building block program, like playing football, you wonder why you have to run so many drills then in a game it comes naturally. IMHO

chesskang wrote:...especially helpful is the info from the veterans who seem to come back and say, "aha now in month 3 month 2 makes sense." Remember it is a building block program, like playing football, you wonder why you have to run so many drills then in a game it comes naturally. IMHO

I really like the new videos for the first two months. As you point out, every so often you gotta go back to the fundamentals - it's amazing how much stuff I either forgot or missed the first time through.

That is why I intend to re-do the entire course once I complete it... and then redo it again and again until I remember it. Maybe then I will progress from 1550 to 1800 lol

For me personally, I have several steps I do when studying annotated games. I use Chessbase files to play through games to expedite the games quickly and I normally spend 20 min on a game.
1. Ignore opening theory (unless I'm interested in learning a particular opening)
2. Play through the game first, without checking a variation.
3. Play game again, and check variations (with engine if really needed)
4. Highlight something I learned from ICS, for example, obstructing my opponents pieces. "To Do List", etc.