Etiquette for revealing your opponent's handle when posting a game

I blog about almost all of my games, and recently I'm reaching a large number of readers and this issue came up, no problem when posting about your losses, but when posting about your wins, is it necessary to have your opponent's approval about displaying his/her nickname, for example, in the game viewer of chess com?

At the moment I'm inclined towards a not asking any permission to reveal their handle even if it's a loss for their side, as all the games played here become part of public domain and anyone can enter their profiles and view the games.

What are your opinions on this? How would you handle the situation if your opponent had posted a blog or forum entry and not hide your nickname in a game your lost against them?

Personally, I don't think it should be necessary to get permission to post a game. Anyone can click on other members and see their games anyway.

I do think one should be sensitive in how they annotate a posted game. We all make mistakes, when pointing out those of others it should be done lightly... like "White missed..." versus "White blundered..."

Thanks for sharing your opinion on this. I don't think "white blundered" is impolite though, it's a widely used term in gm analysis too.

I think one should always put "anonymous" as the opponent. I think one would really have to want to know the name of the opponent, by searching through the poster's profile. I'm in favor of not revealing, and not even asking. There is just no need to.

Is it required? No.

Is it polite? Yes.

Personally I don't think it's necessary, as nobody should whine about a loss of theirs being posted unless very unjustified comments are being made. But if you were feeling polite that wouldn't be a bad idea.

I don't think it's necessary....our games here are public for the world to see anyway.

In my opinion, it's polite to treat your opponents as serious chess players, and that means giving their names.

Whenever I post my games on the internet, I leave off the opponent's name, regardless of the result of the game. Sometimes, I annotate games that I played OTB, so the games aren't available on the net, so it's not possible for someone to find out who I was playing. I just prefer to keep things relatively anonymous, to keep anything from becoming personal.

--Fromper

The only time I'd take offense is if the game had no instructional value and it was just a showcase of a your opponent's (my) blunder.  "And after 20 moves and dropping a rook like an idiot orangehonda resigned."  Now if we'd done some interesting thing in the opening or otherwise were playing some good chess before I dropped the rook, then fine it's not my real name anyway so I wont loose sleep over it.

Whenever I see a blog like "I had a 300 point upset in 32 moves after my opponent missed a mate in one" I roll my eyes whether it was one of my games or not.

Personally i dont see what the issue is with revealing your opponents name when posting a game.  Im just as ok with my name being posted by my opponent.

This is my attitude about it.  In fact, if someone posts a game and and does not give the opponent's name and rating...I tend to be put off from even looking at the game.  Lose or win, I think the identity is part of a professional and real post.

So the general consensus is that it's OK unless the annotator behaves disrespectfully. I'm glad about that, that was my initial intention. I especially agree with Scarblac's opinion.

Interesting. I'm not sure I really understand why though. Could you elaborate a bit please?

I feel exactly the same with games that have no indication of ratings and time controls. Rating & time control is relevant for assessing the game and deciding if it's worth a serious look (for example, when I click on "my latest win" type of forum threads I often don't bother looking any further if the rating range is almost a thousand points lower than mine or it's just another random bullet game), and names add a little touch of reality to the game.

I don't know if that makes sense, and maybe AfafBouardi's view is different.

Oh NO!!!!!!!!!

I am guilty of this. I appologize in advance to eveyrone who's game i have posted. Most of them were of my losses though. Awwww man!

 Philidor_position, I still find it intrusive. For example: The argument stating something like,'Well it is an honor, or the masters have their games published'. I would simply say they are payed to play, and the honor is assumptive. Those who state that it is professional to report all the facts, I would say that sources are asked if their names may be used. Serious players may seriously want to remain anonymous. Professional players reap reward from publication. I would say that the majority opinion, does not necessarily lead to a thoughtful response. I do question your desire to make public the opponent in private games. What is the need or want of it? How does it matter?

Eeasy there, veggiegirlie, we haven't reached a final decision and we are not enforcing any punishment yet.

I agree with Scarblac's position.

Whenever I see "NN" as a player, it means "this guy doesn't matter, he's only there to push the wood on the other side of the board" and it makes the poster look like a pompous bragger. It would be discourteous not to give the opponent's name.

1. There is the veracity factor.  I think a couple days ago...someone was showcasing the dumbest game ever...a mate in two moves.  Checking his games, there was no such game.  Whatever.

2.  I initially felt my losses...esp. embarrassingly bad moves...were very personal and intimate.  The reality is, that's my own emotional baggage.  The game is an open game and I feel chess is a scholarly learning pursuit and all games, unless previously agreed upon, are public information.

Laughing at someone in annotation is another matter entirely...though I haven't really seen anyone do that.