GM Miguel Najdorf competed in Candidate events from the mid-1940s to the late 1950s. GM Andras Adorjan competed at the top level in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

See the link box in the upper right corner of this article for links to the two reviews. [If you're not sure what the term 'candidate' means, you'll also find a link to an explanation of the World Chess Championship qualifying cycle.]

***

Najdorf is listed as an author on the book that bears his name because he wrote notes to more than 50 of the 131 games that make up the bulk of the book. Adorjan included more than 30 of his own games in the Black Is OK book, along with extensive notes.

It's worth noting that the annotation style of the two players couldn't be farther apart. Najdorf often analyzed positions with verbal assessments, sometimes giving concrete variations. Adorjan usually analyzes positions using tangles of concrete variations, sometimes giving verbal assessments. To a large extent the players' analysis style mirror the difference between chess in the mid-20th century and chess as it is played today. Let's look at some examples of annotation by both players.

Miguel Najdorf - Verbal Assessment

Game 12

Najdorf - Keres
Circulo de Ajedrez Tournament
Buenos Aires 1939

Najdorf played 9.Bb3 and explained, 'A question of simple reasoning. I see that with b7-b5 or Ne8-d6 the Bishop would be hit and so I move it to limit Black's options, because now it would not be the same thing to make one of those moves. At the same time I prepare a precise moment to play e4, provoking a fight in the center which I anticipate will be favorable.'

Game 67

Euwe - Najdorf
Candidates Tournament
Zurich 1953

Najdorf played 11...Kh8, assigned the move '?', and explained, 'Here I did not hit upon the correct plan. I should play 11...Ba6 with the idea of Ra8-b8 and b7-b5, counterattacking on the Queenside, and if White plays 12.a4 then 12...Rac8 followed by 13...Nb4; meanwhile there is no immediate danger on the King's flank. In making the text move I was thinking about the strong outpost of the White Knight on e4 and was preparing to dislodge it with f7-f5.'

Andras Adorjan - Analysis of Variations

From 'More Curiosities'

Hjartarson - Adorjan
Esbjerg 1985

White has just played 8.Bf1-b5+. Adorjan responded 8...Bd7 and explained, 'This is a handy reply, but in such sharp positions routine moves can prove to be wrong. There was another interesting option with the following nice long variations.' He then gives 8...Nbd7 9.Nf5 a6 followed by two pages of analysis! His conclusion? 'I don't know whether you will find this a piece of art or just meaningless blabber, but one thing you must admit: it does have the bulk...' Indeed it does.

From 'Beauties in BLACK'

Dlugy - Adorjan
New York Open 1987

White has just played 12.Qa4-c2. Adorjan replied 12...Qc8 and wrote, 'For quite a long time, I was under the delusion (without taking the line very seriously), that 12...Nce4 is quite playable here, as the pin arising after 13.Ne5 seemed to be easy to neutralise, thanks to the position of White's Queen's Rook on d1. I was mistaken!' He then gives 12... Nce4? 13. Ne5 Nxc3 14. Bxb7 Nxd1 15. Rxd1 with two more pages of analysis. Some of the variations go to moves 50-60 before concluding that Black is lost!

***

The average chess player (meaning most of us!) will never come close to qualifying as a World Championship candidate. It is still useful to know that there are at least two methods to understanding a chess position: (1) the method of verbal assessment and (2) the method of concrete analysis of variations. People are better at the first method; computers are better at the second.