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

OK, I'll try to explain.

the reason I like to include my opponents' nicknames (note that not names, but just the handles on their public profile) is because I like writing about the tournament situation, or how beating or drawing or losing against that particular opponent was important for me etc. If you have to be careful about keeping their name secret, than you wouldn't have any chance of talking about things such as:

"this was against my main rival in this round, who has beaten such and such players with style and showed such and such bla bla, claiming the X spot on the tournament table. Now all I had to do was beat YY, and draw against ZZ in a slighlty worse ending to face this BB in a 'tournament final' type of game." etc. You get the idea. I want to keep things interesting, I like sharing the personal atmosphere the game was played in.

Asking everyone for their permission isn't the end of the world of course, but sometimes there's the language barrier, there's the possibility of finding out you're facing a complete jerk, or some won't respond when you ask and then come grumble about it after you post it etc.

I just want to know if it's ok to not get into that.

My guidelines are a little fluid. I think I usually include my opponent's name, but I've considered withholding it, or asking them if they're ok with me posting. I think I've never asked, because then you're really asking them to dwell a little bit longer on whatever game this is - and let's face it they probably made some mistakes leading to a win or draw on your part.

On the other side of things, I've had some of my opponents ask me if I'm ok with them posting their win over me. I'm ok with it. The games are public anyways, and knowledge sharing is a good thing.

What I would be against, on principle, is posting along with the games what the person said to you during the game, without their permission.

EDIT: Regarding the permission/notification line of thinking, I think this is one of those things where you can ask for permission and expect to get it. Like when a Boss says "do you mind working on this thing" - she's not really asking, but she's being polite about how she's wording "do this".

Philidor_position, I understand your point, and think it's neat how you want to give your posts a unique style. I'm with you. But the rating would suffice as the opponent, and in no way take away from the literary quality. There seems something uncomfortable, not in how you handle it so much as how that opponent is left exposed to others.

In my tiny opinion...

I think that it is polite to ask for permission. If permission is not obtained, and you feel strongly like posting the game, post it without the handle. Why should that be a problem ? If it is really the game that is important then the opponent's identity is not relevant.

Yes, of course, GM tournament games are in public domain but it is somewhat different with Internet games where people often just play to relax and probably don't expect that a blitz game they played after having a few drinks will appear in a public forum for scrutiny with their name on it.

I think that if you take the conscious decision to play games that are registered in a larger body (like FIDE, or Chess.com), willingly writing down your name (or supplying your handle) .. well, that means its public.

You aren't going to tell me that chessbase asks every GM for permission to post the games they played. Its preposterous. What if Carlsen said "I always want to be anonymous" - would we see large numbers of games played against a mysterious high rated NN? Of course not.

And the same goes for internet chess. Yes, of course you are more relaxed. But then again you have full freedom to play under a handle of your choosing, so that accounts for that.

I don't have anything against being polite and I don't think its bad to ask, but I think its way out to suggest its bad form not to. I usually don't.

(I do take care to be fair in my annotations though)

The logic seems to be that, since Tolstoy's novels are publicly available, we should not have a problem with someone publishing our personal emails.

I find your point with "people often just play to relax and probably don't expect that a blitz game they played after having a few drinks will appear in a public forum for scrutiny with their name on it" on your previous comment valid, but this comparison with Tolstoy and emails isn't accurate, as our personal emails aren't publicly available to anyone who happens to be on yahoo, but our games & nicknames here are available for everyone on chess com, and not even members, for viewers too.

Maybe we should not include blitz games when posting with nicknames. I do play blitz horribly and sometimes drunk. (I don't think I would have a problem with someone posting the game with my nickname though. But I can understand how it can be very annoying for some). 

Having said that, if we are to assume a non-blitz chess game is taken seriously by both sides, (which is a valid assumption, I guess), this shouldn't be the case with slow games or correspondence games. Maybe?

Well it's certainly not impolite.

Thanks for being easy on me tryst, I must admit your bashings in that "960 - disgrace for chess" thread had scared me a little.

It has to do with time control somewhat, and frankly with what kind of game it was. If the game was really interesting and tight this is different from a game where you caught your opponent in some tricky trap on move 10, or they just blundered. But in any case I think it is polite to ask for permission. I realize this is not required by site rules but if it were we would not be discussing whether it is polite. (The issue of politeness is not relevant when something is forbidden by the law.)

In general I'm not in favour of posting a name.  It seems a little presumptuous to me.

What if they were having a bad day and were not playing at their usual level (even if they won)?  I doubt they'd be happy for this to be brought to the public's attention.

I think the safest bet is to specify "Anonymous", and then if the person is not happy about that (not very likely, IMO) then they can ask you to specify their name.

Sorry I just couldn't resist: " I never beat a healthy opponent in my life" (It's either Tartakower, Fischer, Bird, or some other famous player.)

I think the opponent's rating should be given.

I think the opponent's name/handle should not be given if the opponent lost - may be given if the opponent won.

This is just to be polite (I don't think giving NN is bragging, just the opposite), and many privacy laws are coming up in civilised nations, so if we want to prove ourselves to be civilised to others, better not to mention defeated opponent's names (yes, they can be found out from games list, but mentioning them in annonated and advertised games is quite another thing).

Really, philidor_position? On the 960 thread, I called the game "disgraceful", and then some people called me "shallow", "illogical", and pretty much nuts. I thought I was, shall we say, in the mood to respond. I hope it wasn't too off-putting.

Is this a matter of INTERNET REPUTATION?

On topic: Post names. Does anyone really look down on somebody who makes a silly blunder? Are those people actually worried about people looking down on them for making a silly blunder?

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=4419367

This is a question of decency, decorum?

Putting your phrase of "INTERNET REPUTATION" back to you, won't you be angered if somebody called you "(auto-censored)"? Of course anyone will be!

Similarly someone with greater sensitivity will be annoyed if their bad games are highlighted in front of others. It is only a question of decency.

What point are you making? I was really that bad some short time ago. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Also. No. I don't care about others' thoughts of me at all.

Then sometime or other you will have an enlightening experience!

Good luck till then!

Take note of the edit.