1. Verbal abuse from an opponent for playing too slowly. Started very early in the game and amazingly continued even after opponent was at a 30-40 point deficit. (Shamefully after the umpteenth instance, I couldn't resist pointing out to my opponent that he might benefit from taking more of his own time to reflect on his moves.)

2. Asked an opponent if he would like to review a game (as I often do) only to be told something like, "Of course YOU want to review the game -- you won!".

Enough venting. Here is my question -- is this always part of online go? Or does this kind of behavior start to become less common once one advances to say the lower or middle dan levels?

I believe it's proper etiquette for the loser to request the review?

Bad behavior seems slightly more common in the DDK range. However after a hundred games or so on KGS as an SDK I think can count the really bad experiences on one hand.

I believe it's proper etiquette for the loser to request the review?

Weaker amateurs may be likely to take losing a game as a blow to the ego and view reviewing it as reviewing the pain as well. Online we often know little about our partners in games. Some might be young people unschooled in proper behavior, and these opponents might be more found in the weaker ranks. As the cliche says, on the internet no one knows you are a dog. The existence of censoring suggests that impoliteness is at least frequent enough to require censoring.

If you, as the winner, want to ask for a review, it might make it more appealing to the loser if you say you know you yourself made mistakes and would like to have a look at them to learn from them. Have you noticed anything lacking in greetings before the game and thanks after? Omitting to thank you for the game could be a signal.

If this is in fact a generally followed norm, then I suspect you are right. That said, I'm not sufficiently put off by a negative response to let a sore loser dictate my behavior. Seems more valuable both to me and the general community to make the offer regardless of outcome. That said, if it is a norm, I'll have to adjust the language of my offer to try to assuage any potential offense.

And these:




Are excellent suggestions for doing that. Thanks!

I guess at the end of the day what really worries me about these instances is how children or more sensitive players might react. My skin is fairly thick, but not everyone's is. I worry about people forgoing what could be a good experience for them because of the uncontrolled negative behavior of a few. But these are hardly new or unique concerns when it comes to modern life on the Internet...

By the way, I know pro does have this review tradition after game. But for amateurs, game is just a form of entertainment, I doubt that many people have interest in review. I myself do not. I grew up in China and played a lots of games when I was young in China, very few people at amateur level wanted to review game at amateur level.

By the way, I know pro does have this review tradition after game. But for amateurs, game is just a form of entertainment, I doubt that many people have interest in review. I myself do not. I grew up in China and played a lots of games when I was young in China, very few people at amateur level wanted to review game at amateur level.

Thanks for the feedback. While I have had some very positive experiences reviewing games with some opponents, the vast majority turn me down. So, I think you are correct. If you do not mind my asking, why do you dislike reviews?

In general if I'm not familiar the opponent or playing over a real board - I'm not interested in reviews between myself and someone who is the same level as myself. No personal connection and too few insights.

In general if I'm not familiar the opponent or playing over a real board - I'm not interested in reviews between myself and someone who is the same level as myself. No personal connection and too few insights.

Correct. Same opinion from me. I would love to review with a much stronger play or a teacher level occasionally, on limited schedule. no interest, nor have time to review with a similar level player for most of games. We are too busy to have both in normal life.

This was same in China when I was young. Play and review were two different actions, they did not necessarily go together.

In general if I'm not familiar the opponent or playing over a real board - I'm not interested in reviews between myself and someone who is the same level as myself. No personal connection and too few insights.

Well, if everyone shared this attitude there were no reviews at all

If I review my own games in most cases I would find some obvious mistakes or improvements which I didn't see during gameplay. In most cases it's not rocket science. It feels like I'm about 3 stones stronger when reviewing my games instead of playing. I assume that also applies for my opponents. Therefore I try to combine self-reviews, reviews with opponents of weaker/same strength and sometimes (especially when I've no clue) ask stronger players for review or bring my game to the local club. But that's just my 2 ct.

Does anyone know the answer to this?

If I'm unintentionally being rude -- that might explain the rude replies! As I see it, I often review my games regardless of the outcome. So, when I have time for a review, I always invite my opponent -- out of both politeness and selfishness. Even if I won, I'm sure that my opponent had ideas that did not occur to me.

And if this is the norm, this seems odd to me -- reviewing your game is generally useful. So, why should there be an asymmetry in who gets to extend the offer? In fact, my initial thought on this was that excluding my opponent from a review would be rude.

After all, my opponent is the same rank as me and I could just as easily come up with anything he or she comes up with! But in an ideal world, even the opponent that's 6 stones weaker than you who just won you in a 6-stone game could have ideas that didn't occur to you, right? It just comes down to pride.