Hello,
I've been a subscriber at ChessPublishing for many years, and I like the 'no fuss' and good quality service you offer.
However, in the recent years, I have found it more and more difficult to use the annotated games, as it looks like authors go always deeper into very detailed analysis variations which are already the fruit of home engine analysis themselves
I know this is the nature of modern chess to become more and more concrete, but I feel like the current selection and annotation style shifts towards a somewhat 'pro-level'. At my level (~2050), and no longer in my prime
, I find it increasingly difficult to follow it. The theory is also extremely topical.
Hence, a small suggestion, if only for variety's sake. Why not offer from time to time, games which are more 'practical', such as those played by pros against strong amateurs in the open (ie. +2400 vs. -2200) and add some general instruction comments ? I think it would be both interesting and educative to see which 'surprise weapons' pros use to win, and how they do it.
On a related note, I also like when authors give a general opinion about the variation they're examining ('topical', 'very sharp', 'surprise').
edit : an example of the type of games I'm thinking of is Kemp-Palliser, 2011 - with nice annotations and insights into Richard's thought process