Strange. And I would have thought the analogy was...if Tolstoy's personal emails were being shared...then our emails should have to be shared.
Our games are published material...yes, public material can be disseminated.
My SAT score suggests I should be quite gifted with analogies, but thank you for the literal explanation.
I don't think its an issue to post the handle of your opponent when posting a game. After all, the game is public anyway, and even though it reveals your thought process, thats about it. Its just a game, and not really that big of a thing.
@tryst You go to UMich like me? :)
I don't think its an issue to post the handle of your opponent when posting a game. After all, the game is public anyway, and even though it reveals your thought process, thats about it. Its just a game, and not really that big of a thing.
@tryst You go to UMich like me? :)
I used to, HIILIEKWAFLES
wow, ok, so maybe on the sports news they should put a grey mask over everybody's face that makes a questionable play or silly move, otherwise they could be terribly, terribly offended! (offended you understand, so so offended)
How about, the game was played, two people played the game and they have no business being slighted if the game is reproduced for others to see. It's a chess game not their pin number or tax return! Providing the identity of the players says nothing about the quality of the individual, it's just a reproduction of a game of chess that they participated in. If the person is so hyperbolically prone to taking offense, they should not be playing chess, because clearly someone taking their pieces would be unbearable if they can be so wounded over trifles.
And dsarkar, I really want what you're smoking. Your comment about setting a good example to the world by not publishing the names of opponents (if they lose) is pretty frightening, considering the actual problems that exist in the world. This all falls into the trivial category.
lmfao 
How about, the game was played, two people played the game and they have no business being slighted if the game is reproduced for others to see. It's a chess game not their pin number or tax return! Providing the identity of the players says nothing about the quality of the individual, it's just a reproduction of a game of chess that they participated in. If the person is so hyperbolically prone to taking offense, they should not be playing chess, because clearly someone taking their pieces would be unbearable if they can be so wounded over trifles.
I don't need social idiots to tell me whether I should be playing chess.
Now you surely are not going to be offended by this comment since there are much worse things happening in the world.
whoa. Why do you assume someone is a social idiot and furthermore, why use offensive language?
Anyway, I guess we'll all just do what we deem is appropriate...good luck to all.
this argument is dragging itself towards a ridiculous war of abuse.
simply, the games are all publically available anyway. if i post a game (me vs NN) then it's only going to take a minute or two for someone to head over to my profile, look through my archive and find the corresponding game (ranks and other details give it away, as do pgns).
i think anyone who has a problem with their games being posted is being somewhat anal. nobody is berating the loser "oh man, he got thrashed, what a retard" ... and looking over the game is a learning experience for both players.
and, technically, chess.com's TOS probably states that they own the pgns and details for your games anyway. so i don't even believe you would have the "right" to demand that your games are not posted.
cheer up lads! hehe!!
Who told you you shouldn't be playing chess Atos? I know I didn't. I think reading comprehension is the culprit here.
It is sometimes difficult to know who meant to say what here. A question was asked about whether it is polite to post a game in public without the opponent's permission while citing their handle. As a general point I don't think it's polite though it depends on the circumstances to some extent. This doesn't mean that I am going to go crazy if someone posts one of my 15 move blitz defeats here without my permission (though I might block them); it does mean that I don't think it is polite. I myself wouldn't do it. People who post their 15 moves wins usually somehow omit to post their (usually numerous) 15 moves losses. And their insistence to post the opponent's handle signals to me that there is nothing about the game itself that is interesting or instructive. The vast majority of the games played on the Internet are not really on the level that they merit being publicized anyway.
you should put no name or anonymous imo. unless it's a competitive game, if it's for fun then ask them if they don't mind you posting it. it's not like there's a problem putting no name.
You can post my name and I wouldnt give two hoots whats the big deal? we all lose games and we all make mistakes
To a certain degree politeness is subjective, but that doesn't mean there are no arguments to support either stance. While I respect your opinion I don't think it has a very solid foundation.
1. That you wouldn't post an opponents handle is no argument. It is just a restatement of your position (that doing so would be impolite). It shows that you at least do try to be polite, but most others are too. The discussion is about what constitutes polite behaviour here. That you might block people who do show handles suggests to me that you have little tolerance for a different viewpoint. Is a shown handle really all you need to judge?
2. "People who post their 15 moves wins usually somehow omit to post their (usually numerous) 15 moves losses."
Yes, there are some people who just like to boast. Then again I think it is no crime to be proud of a nice win, especially if you kept struggling through many losses to get it. And what if people are more inclined to post wins than losses? There was a winner in every game they lost, and maybe they are perfectly okay with the other guy showing their handle in his games on display.
I just don't see how it is bad character if you are happier to share wins than losses. If I did then I would have to pass a negative judgement on a whole lot of people and that alone would for me be a reason to reconsider my viewpoint. Is their 'crime' really that severe?
To end this one on a positive note: many people that do post wins also post losses. I know I do. Here are a few examples:
http://blog.chess.com/RC_Woods/an-exciting-kings-gambit-declined
http://blog.chess.com/RC_Woods/the-prooz-games---01
http://blog.chess.com/RC_Woods/two-intense-losses-22
3. "And their insistence to post the opponent's handle signals to me that there is nothing about the game itself that is interesting or instructive."
There is no logic to back this up, but what I find worse is that many people put a lot of effort in creating good annotations trying to share what they thought was interesting or instructive about their games.
You may have a different viewpoint on showing handles, but I think you could be a lot nicer and a lot more tolerant than dismiss all their (quite possibly well intended) work while passing judgement on them as being of bad character.
Maybe they aren't being "insistent" on showing their opponents handle. Maybe they just don't see showing handles as part of a a big boasting game of whom beat whom. Maybe they never gave much thought to actively removing handles from the pgn they downloaded from this public chess site with public game archives. Maybe they think that even a game lost can be a game well played. How do you know?
4. The vast majority of the games played on the Internet are not really on the level that they merit being publicized anyway.
You can learn from a bad game. A 1200 player can learn from a 1400 game. That you think most of the games played here are unworthy shouldn't prevent anyone from sharing and learning together.
To summarize:
I personally see nothing wrong in showing handles when blogging or writing articles on this site. The handles and games where public anyway, and if people are nice in the annotations then to me there is no crime at all.
Strange. And I would have thought the analogy was...if Tolstoy's personal emails were being shared...then our emails should have to be shared.
Our games are published material...yes, public material can be disseminated.
My SAT score suggests I should be quite gifted with analogies, but thank you for the literal explanation.
Yeesh. I know you can do better than that Ms. Bouardi. Sounds a lot like, "well, my dad can beat up your dad!"
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?
I don't think there is a right or wrong here but when I post one of my games from here or OTB I never put the person's handle or name. I just say Chess.com person. I just feel comfortable with that but since they are just handles from chess.com I don't think it matters too much either way.
I see no reason to post the name of the opponent on this thread other than being unempathetic to people's wishes to remain anonymous in this community, and to possibly being embarrassed in this community. I have no idea what the desire is to publish the name of the opponent? Some people have stated it would be polite to not do so without at least consent from the person who participated in the game. It seems a simple matter after that, as the two people that produced the game could contact one another, or not. For those stating that it is not impolite, not presumptuous, or that people are not entitled to their own reason for not having their name attached to a game put forth in the public forums of this community, are being very strange about it. There is no need to publish the handle. It doesn't make sense to fight on about it when the person publishing the game could either publish the rating of the person they played or summarise the relationship with their opponent without mentioning the opponents handle. It seems quite silly to push for replacing empathy to the opponents possible wishes to remain anonymous, with neglecting it for...??? What??? I don't understand.
Another data point: once an opponent of mine posted a game in which he won, and asked me about it first. I was glad he did because I was then able to add some comments into the posting, which of course have special value because I was the opponent.
Come to think of it, I think that guy posted the game without my name.. he said something like "me vs. a strong opponent".
Another data point: once an opponent of mine posted a game in which he won, and asked me about it first. I was glad he did because I was then able to add some comments into the posting, which of course have special value because I was the opponent.
Come to think of it, I think that guy posted the game without my name.. he said something like "me vs. a strong opponent".
He sounds lovely and that went very nicely. That said, I don't like the idea of turning it into a shame issue to lose a game of chess. What is being hidden from public view? The shortcomings of the mind?
As I said once before, I used to have such a problem with this...feeling very shy to post my own wins or losses because I very well know, the quality of chess is just crap on both sides and I thought it was like exposing my bad thinking. I now believe that to be hilariously oversensitive and immature. I posted a few of my ugliest errors in my own blog and then I got over it.
I like the veracity factor. I like to know that the opponent has an identity. A real one.
I made fun of an OTB opponent in my blog, and he left a message in the comments. Anonymity renders the game suspect. Is it fabricated as were Greco's gems?
As I said once before, I used to have such a problem with this...feeling very shy to post my own wins or losses because I very well know, the quality of chess is just crap on both sides and I thought it was like exposing my bad thinking. I now believe that to be hilariously oversensitive and immature. I posted a few of my ugliest errors in my own blog and then I got over it.
And what was supposed to be of public interest about your blunders ? I thought that the reason people would post games because they think they are interesting or instructive.
As I said once before, I used to have such a problem with this...feeling very shy to post my own wins or losses because I very well know, the quality of chess is just crap on both sides and I thought it was like exposing my bad thinking. I now believe that to be hilariously oversensitive and immature. I posted a few of my ugliest errors in my own blog and then I got over it.
And what was supposed to be of public interest about your blunders ? I thought that the reason people would post games because they think they are interesting or instructive.
For me, my games are interesting...if someone is my friend or wants to read my blog...they can see what I'm experiencing or going through. I don't think there is some kind of law or license about when you are allowed to post games...
Sometimes it's to say "wow, look at what I did...yay" and other times it's to say "ugh, what was I thinking??".
http://blog.chess.com/AfafBouardi/better-players-play-worse
In that blog...I name my two HIGHER rated opponents who lost and both of them came and courteously left kind comments without even being told the game was going to be posted. Neither feeling offended at all.
http://blog.chess.com/AfafBouardi/i-am-a-piece-collector
In this blog...I show how retardedly I can play against two opponents. I remember wanting to bang my head into a wall when I wrote that blog. It cured me of a lot of chess insecurities. Try it. 
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.
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.
huh?
Further proof that chess doesn't always demand skills in logic.
It was let's say an analogy. Since some people need to have everything spelled literally to understand, the point was that if tournament games played between GMs are publicly available it doesn't follow that Internet games played between ammateurs must be. Also there is a difference between games being possible to find somewhere and them being posted in a forum for everyone's attention. I hope that everyone will now be able to understand this without further 10 pages of explanation.