It is kind of sad. I mean I grew reading the Informants and now it seems it's time is over.

No.  These days if I want to see a bunch of language-less analysis, I turn on Rybka.   

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 10/29/10 at 05:18:10:


a) They have a number of games which are not found in the major databases (Mega, TWIC).

b) The games are analysed in detail, with improvements suggested for both sides in the opening phase. 

c) The Informant sorts through the database plus some games not in the database to find the most theoretically important ideas. This saves a player several hours in weeding through the games to find the theoretical novelties. 

d) It's one more major opening source that your opponent may not use!

e) An Informant covers virtually all openings in each issue, whereas the coverage in a NIC Yearbook or ChessBase Magazine is on specific variations, albeit with more games on these specific lines. 

This post began with a quote, and I will now end it with a quote:

[quote author=Tim Harding in Chess Mail]
"The fact that there is explanatory text makes these Yearbooks much more suitable than Informator for the average amateur." [/quote]

P.S I have the first 102 Informants in a database plus two more recent Informants in book form. I should update my collection.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Informants come with VERY FEW explanations. So it seems better to have a huge database for free. But I was so in love with the Informants that I had to ask the question

The Informants are still an indispensable source of information for players rated over 2400, but below that you don't need to use the Informant. Below 2400, your opponent will almost always deviate before you can get the 'Informant TN' on the board, reducing the value of studying the Informants.

Another reason the Informants aren't that useful for <2400 players is because there is no explanatory text. The book(s) assume you already have a good understanding of chess. The Yearbooks are more useful in this respect.