The post-mortem

Do people do the 'post-mortem' any more? While it still happens at weekend chess events, has the club post-mortem fallen victim to the accelerated pace of modern life?
When I first started playing chess, analysing your games with your opponent was a significant part of the learning process. These days the post-mortem happens at home, with the computer, and the exchange of ideas often occur the following week, when players compare analysis. While I can't speak for anyone else, I'm sure this approach hasn't helped my chess an awful lot, and has instead encouraged my natural laziness, resulting in a slow but steady loss of form.
So to reverse this trend I might try and get back into the habit of analysing with my opponent after the game (especially when I lose). Hopefully it will result in an improvement in my results.

The fun is in the analysis

Even one sided games can produce a bit of fun, especially during the post mortem. In the given position White is clearly winning, and Black (to move) blundered with 23. ... Kf8. White pounced with 24.Qh8+ Ke7 25.Qe8# In the instant post mortem White suggested 23. ... Rxc7 as he could only see 24.Qh8+ Kf7 25.Qxh7+ Ke8 26.Qxc7 when Black fires back with 26. ... Bh3! This offers a second rook, but the mate threat requires White to begin returning material straight away eg 27.Qxb8+ Kd7 28.Rf2 exf2+ 29.Kxf2 Qxg2 30.Ke1Qg1+ 31.Kd2 Now Black can take a draw with 31. ... Qe3+ or try for a little more with 31. ... Qxb1 Having reached this position the collaborative effort of players and spectators then found a number of mates for Black, although none of them were exactly forced.
Sadly, White doesn't have to give Black so many chances to get back into the game as 24.Qh8+ Kf7 25.Bd4 (or even 25.h4) ruins the party. If Black tries 25. ... Bh3 then 26.Qxh7+ doesn't win the rook on c7, but simply cleans up the bishop on h3.

You'll just have to show me

One of the more frustrating things I found when learning chess was that sometimes annotators would pass over a move without looking at obvious alternatives. Well, obvious to me at least. Often I would be left scratching my head after seeing a player not swap queens (for example) and then get mated, by the enemy queen, 6 moves later, with the annotator failing to mention QxQ as an alternative.
I like to be shown things, especially if it isn't obvious what would have happened next. Now one example of this has always stuck in my mind ever since I started playing chess seriously. One of my favourite opening books is "The Italian Game" by Harding and Botterill. The chapter on the Wilkes-Barre has long since been covered in the stains of my grubby thumb prints, but there was one line (and lack of analysis) that always irritated me. So finally I put the game into Fritz to try and discover what had been left unsaid by the authors. (The comments are mine btw)

Jentzch - Nosotta [C57]
cr cr, 1956

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Ke3 While this move looks suicidal, it is considered by some as the best chance of refuting the Traxler. 7...Qh4 8.Qf3 Now this move 'looks' sensible. 8...Nf6!! (D)
The !! were given by Harding and Botterill followed by 0-1. Annoyingly there was no explanation for this assement, and in pre-computer days I found it very hard to find a clear cut win for Black. 9.Ke2 As this just loses quickly why not grab the rook instead. [ 9.Nxh8 Nd4 10.Qd1 ( 10.Qf1 Ng4+ 11.Kd3 Nf2+ 12.Kc3 Ne4+ 13.Kd3 Nc5+ 14.Ke3 ( 14.Kc3 Nb5+ 15.Kb4 a5+ 16.Kxb5 ( 16.Kxc5 d6+ 17.Kxb5 Bd7#) 16...c6+ 17.Kb6 Qd8+ 18.Kxc5 d6#; 14...Nxc2+ 15.Ke2 ( 15.Kf3 Qf4+ 16.Ke2 Qxc4+) 15...Qxc4+-+ although only on 'points'; 10...Qf4+ 11.Kd3 Qf5+ 12.Kc3 ( 12.Ke3 Ng4+ 13.Qxg4 Nxc2+ 14.Ke2 Qxg4+) 12...Ne4+ 13.Kb4 ( 13.Kd3 Nf2+) 13...a5+ 14.Ka4 b5+ 15.Bxb5 Nc5+ 16.Ka3 Nxb5#;
or move the bishop 9.Bb3 Rf8 10.Qg3 ( 10.g3 Qd4+ 11.Ke2 d5 with too many threats.) 10...Qe4+ 11.Kf2 Ng4+ 12.Kg1 Qd4+ 13.Kf1 d5 winning back the piece and leaving Black on top;
9.d3 Nd4 10.Qf1 Rf8 with d5 and Rxf7 to follow.] 9...Qxc4+ 10.Kd1 Nd4 0-1