Is this how to annotate your own chess games properly?

Question

I created a Lichess study of a game I played the game an hour ago and have tried to annotate it. Would anyone care to have a look and see if I'm missing the point of I annotation all together? For example, should write more or, write less and include more variations? Does anyone have any suggestions?

[Title "Thylmanoid vs Jack11"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 exd4 {I'm better developed and I want to strike at the center. I also considered O-O but I didn't want Bg4.} 5. Qxd4 {I also considered Nxd4 but this looks more active and I also have some threats of Bxg7 later perhaps. Also this game reminded me of a famous Paul Morphy game in the philidor.} Bd7 {Now Nxd4 is a threat. } 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 {Black now has the pair of the bishops.} 7. Bg5 Nf6 { I thought here for a while because I felt there is something wrong with this move but I couldn't find the solution.} 8. Bxf6 Qxf6 {I took the knight to induce doubled isolated f-pawns but I don't think it was the correct move. Black now has the pair of the bishops and the potential to trade queens into an easy endgame.} 9. Qxf6 gxf6 {I could have considered Nc3 here but the whole plan of Bxf6 was to give Black double isolated pawns and to play against them.} 10. Nbd2 Bh6 {I think this is an inaccuracy because of my opponents move Bh6 preventing me from castling queen-side. And threatening the take the pawn on e4. Nc3 is probably better. But I wanted the chance to play c4 putting a clamp on the d5 square.} 11. O-O-O Bxe4 {Here I tried to be fancy. I thought after Bxe4 I had Re1 pinning the bishop forcing d5 or f5 and then Nxe4 after Kb1.} 12. Rhe1 d5 13. Kb1 O-O-O 14. Nxe4 dxe4 {I took the bishop but I thought before I could take the pawn too. I lost a pawn, at least I took away the bishop pair. Now my plan is to prevent Black from playing f5.} 15. Nh4 Bg5 {He is attacking my knight but my knight wanted to go to f5 anyway. g3 would be an ugly move here. I don't want to play Rxd8 here and give Black the only open file.} 16. Nf5 Rhe8 { He is defending his pawn now. Also defending my threat of Ne7+. I'm wondering if Rxd8+ and then Ne7+ does anything but he could just take with the king.} 17. h4 Rxd1+ { Here I had ideas of trapping his bishop. But I didn't see how they could work after 17...Bf4 18 g3 Bd2 19 Re2 the bishop just gets away on the e1-a5 diagonal.} 18. Rxd1 Bf4 19. c3 {There feels like something stronger here c3 is too slow I feel. Maybe g3 is good here now. The bishop only has e5 or d6.} Re5 {Attacking my knight. But blocking the escape squares for the bishop. I was afraid after g3 he just wins a pawn with 20. g3 Rxf5 {Here I felt the knight was best on d5 in the center of the board} 21. gxf4 Rxf4 and he has a passed pawn.} 20. Nd4 Bh6 21. Ka1 a6 {This was a mouse slip. I wanted to play Kc3.} 22. Kb1 c5 {I'm losing valuable tempos now.} 23. Nb3 f5 {Nc2 could be stronger here with control over the e3 square.} 24.Rd6 Bf8 {I liked this move. tempo on the bishop and finally getting to activate my rook.} 25. Rf6 f4 {Putting pressure on both the pawns g4 and f7.} 26. Rxf4 f5 {This bishop is undefended on f8.} 27. g4 Bh6 {I wanted to take advantage of the undefended bishop.} 28. Rxf5 Rxf5 {This seems very good for me. I have a passed pawn and the pressure of the e pawn for black is gone. I'm also a pawn up. I need to get my king into the center and my knight.} 29. gxf5 b6 30. Kc2 Kd7 {I would love Bxd2. But anyway I need to activate my knight. It was doing nothing on b3.} 31. Nd2 e3 {I didn't see this move. It is kind of annoying actually.} 32. fxe3 Bxe3 33. Kd3 {Getting my king to the center.} Bf2 {Attacking my h pawn.} 34. Nf3 Ke7 {I decided to defend the pawn instead of pushing.} 35. Ke4 Kf6 {I started to worry about my time so I just wanted to get my king to the center.} 36. h5 Bg3 {My knight does a good job of controlling the g4 square. I didn't want the h pawn to be a target. And I didn't want my knight to have the sole responsiblity of defending the pawn.} 37. c4 Bd6 {Now I see that perhaps Kf4 and c4 completely neutralises the bishop. I think kf4 would have been a strong move before. Not the bishop can escape.} 38. a3 Bf8 { Controlling b4.} 39. b3 Bh6 { Here I felt like I didn't really know what to do on the queenside. I just wanted to neutralise the pawns so there was no hope of getting a passed pawn.} 40. a4 { Keeping my pawns on light squares and preventing a passed pawn for black.} Bc1 {I honestly felt like I was close to zugzwang here} 41. Ng1 Bb2 { I thought Kg5 would have been strong there. But perhaps I would have Nf3+ Ne5.} 42. Nf3 Bc1 {I was struggling to find moves here. It seems easier for the bishop to make waiting move.} 43. Ne5 Bd2 {Trying to just think of moves that don't lose on the spot. I was really afraid of time trouble here. Living off the increment. Attacking the bishop.} 44. Nf3 Bc3 45. Kd3 Bb2 { Black can't take the pawn.} 46. Ke4 Ba1 {I thought this was a draw even thought I have an extra pawn.} 47. Kf4 h6 {I didn't like this move for Black. He could always use that as a reverse tempo in the future perhaps.} 48. Nd2 Be5+ 49. Kg4 Bc3 50. Ne4+ {Black blundered a fork.} Ke5 51. Nxc3 Kd4 52. f6 1-0

Answer 1

I think you did a great job there of annotating your game. If you have a coach (or an analysis buddy) and you were to show them that then they would get a big head start in identifying problems in your game and helping you to improve.

Chess is a game of challenge. You make your moves on the board but then so does your opponent and his moves challenge yours. When you analyse it is also good if you have somebody to challenge you. I mentioned an analysis buddy in the previous paragraph. It is really good if you have someone like that. You analyse one of their games as well and vice versa and then you sit down and compare and critique each others analyses. The final step would be to put the game into an engine and compare its analysis with yours and your analysis buddy's to see what you have missed and to try and work out why.

Two things stand out from what you've written:

1. You don't do enough calculation before making your moves. Once you've done some calculation then apart from seeing if you've gained or lost material you also need to assess the situation to see if your position has got better or worse. I'm guessing this was a fast time control like blitz so there wasn't much time for calculation. That, by the way, is why blitz is bad for your game. It develops and cements bad habits like not doing enough calculation.

2. There is very little prophylactic thinking. In other words you don't seem to think very much about your opponent's possible moves and plans and how to stop them with the result that they often catch you unawares leading to blunders. Again this might be due to playing too fast.

If you want to see these two ideas in action then Simon Williams, the gingergm, has a YouTube channel where he sometimes puts up rapid games (15+10) where he thinks aloud so you can see the brain of a GM doing this kind of stuff.