I don't mean disagreeing on which move should be played, but why the chosen move was played. The reason why I ask is because if I study a game and read the annotater's explanation, I tend to ask myself if other grandmasters annotating the game would say the same thing or not, or perhaps agree partly but add more important explanations that were not mentioned. Has anyone encountered this before? The only reason why I haven't is because I've always only had one annotater to read from regarding a specific move when studying a game (I mean verbal commentary), so I don't get a chance to compare.
For example, one grandmaster says "Played to protect the weak square on e5", and then another says "The piece moves out of the way so that a2-a4 can be played and launch a minority attack.", so they are really saying different things on what the primary purpose on the move was. Perhaps the first annotater said what he said because the minority attack (or a2-a4 even) was never actually played due to change in circumstances, while the second annotater saw that the minority attack was the original plan but it was changed shortly. Or perhaps the second annotator was wrong about the move's primary intention (perhaps the minority attack was just a secondary possibility) and it really was meant to protect the e5-square, and that is why a2-a4 was never played. I just made up that hypothetical example of course. You can imagine similar "arguments" between grandmasters.