Whenever I give/write a review I ask myself, what is expected from me? I am probably not very good at it and offer either too short or too long explanations. That's why I want to ask here, how do you prefer your game reviews?

For sure, I have developed a preference about reviews I receive. I want to have short comments guiding me to the critical spots not over-explanation with each and every variation. I do want answers when my questions are relevant, but I need someone pointing out the utter irrelevance of my questions when this is what is necessary. In short I prefer an approach that teaches me only one or two things with a certain urgency than an approach that offers me the opportunity to learn everything about the game, where I will most likely will choose the most irrelevant part for study.

In trying to apply this to my assignments, e.g. after a high handicap game, I feel I end up with a short commentary, but I am very cautious in highlighting the urgency or pointing out the relative irrelevance of some aspects - something I prefer in reviews I receive but am not sure how they will be received by someone else. Similarly, looking at the reviews at GTL it seems "long explanation, many variation" reviews are pretty popular. Maybe even Malkovich games are a bit this way, explanations at every move...

(Pity, that topazg isn't active these days, would like to hear his comment on this question.)

It depends.

In the fuseki something like "look, that's better" is often enough. In complex fights I find it quite enjoyable to have someone showing me complex variations but I probably won't learn much of it. I think the best reviews I had tried to convey principles instead of real moves (maybe with the exception of L&D situations) -- I can take much more out of "play away from thickness, because blablabla" instead of "B should have played O16 here, obviously.".

- Michael

_________________
Go is easy: don't play bad moves.

I think the best parts of reviews are when the reviewer takes some mistake and uses it as an opportunity to explain a fundamental principle (like say, extending from a cross-cut). Second-best are simple, one-move positional judgment variations (mostly in the opening, but also in the middle-game). Third-best is a variation showing a clearly better sequence for one side or the other, accompanied by another variation showing why a stubborn resistance doesn't work (if applicable).

When I review games, I look forward to seeing thoughtful games that the one asking for review has gone through himself. It's annoying to get those games where review requester wins by 30+ points and spends less than five seconds to make moves. Not only do I have to spend more time with the game than he did, but what is he trying to gain?

When I ask for review, the most important lessons are those dealing with blind spots that come about in the self-review. New ways of thinking open up possibilities for improvement. Pointing out obvious L&D mistakes is unnecessary, as is telling their answer. I'd rather have difficult situations posed as a problem with crucial turning point highlighted.

I used to review games for The Teaching Ladder, but I find the skill range is too narrow for me (I suppose I could underrank myself a bit in order to feel more confidant in my reviews). I'm too slow for forum or online reviews. Maybe with an audio account I could do better.

I like to find the two or three most common errors that continue to occur in the game (or the biggest errors). I try to give them a nice summary at the beginning about what I found in their game, so they'll stand out throughout the review.

I've never felt strong enough to give a flurry of wild variations (I recall such over confidence in variations from reviewers of my same level -- about ddk to early sdk level at the time)

And for beginners, anything more than two or three common issues can be overwhelming. Learning to correct even one can usually raise their skill level immensely, so no need to give them a play-by-play.

While I agree that reviewing well thought out and lost games may be most beneficial for the reviewee, one can usually still find a few common mistakes that can be corrected in fast or won games too.

When someone reviews my game, of course I appreciate any helpful advice they can give.

The best reviews I've seen focus on a few types of mistakes (even just one) that the player makes multiple times in the game (pushing from behind, reducing own liberties). This does take a bit more effort on the reviewer's part, but that makes sense: the more effort put into a review, hopefully the more helpful it is. Of course, it is nice to see a counter-example (e.g., where pushing from behind is actually okay), but not necessary. Depending on the level, pointing out simple joseki errors and the like is fine too.

It is usually unhelpful to focus on nits that are far beyond the player's level. For example, I almost never focus much on the early opening for DDKs (though I might say "think about something like this next time"), or on the actual choice of joseki. Though there are a few exceptions, closer to 10k, I'll comment on the kick to the knight's approach to the 4-4, for example, if used in the wrong situation. Of course, if a player asks about such things, I'm happy to oblige to the extent I am somewhat confident about the answer.

One thing to avoid in face to face reviews for beginners is the too many cooks in the kitchen problem. When one person is teaching a beginner, resist the urge to jump in and add something, no matter what the other person says. Not only does having multiple reviewers make it less likely you'll stick to a few key points, it raises the probability that they'll start to contradict or correct each other.

Once you get to a certain point, it can be really interesting to watch a couple of strong players disagree about a position, even if you're not at their level. But early on, it's terribly confusing and it will leave you thinking "I'll never understand this game."

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Something very important: Resist the urge to comment when a review isn't wanted. Ask first, that you don't have to worry later.

Since y'all liked my post, and I liked tapir'slet me ask the really hard followups:

(1) What's the best way to ask the player if they want to review? With players weaker than me, I feel like I'm saying "do you want me to judge you?" (even though I do my best to never sound judgmental when reviewing).

(2) How do you correct the too many cooks in the kitchen problem? I always feel like it would be horribly intrusive to say something when it happens, but weird to bring it up after the fact. And when you have an abstract discussion (which has almost never happened at clubs I've been a part of), everyone agrees because they think "oh yeah, I hate it when Jim does that, good thing I don't...".

In general, how do you impart good habits to club members? If I was a great teacher, I'd consider trying a quick talk one day, but I think I'm really just middle of the pack (if I'm being optimistic).

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I usually say something like "let me know if you want to review." This, to me, is less forward.



I recall joining the start of a weaker kyu player's review when the reviewer was maybe 1 or 2 stones stronger than me, and the reviewer just politely asked me not to interject too much, because it would cause confusion. I thought that was fine, though I can see how some might take offense. It would also be more difficult to say that to a stronger player who joins the middle of a review (though, depending on who it is, I'll let a stronger player just take over if they want).

For some reason, I think this is easier to do in person because you can have a conversation, using more words than you really can on KGS (just because it takes longer to type with people staring at a blank screen).

Though, this method really doesn't "correct" the problem, but prevents it. Correcting is more difficult; I think all you can do is either let them take over, or be polite but blunt "Thanks for your pointers, but would you mind waiting until our review is finished? It gets confusing with multiple commenters." Some people will still get upset, but what can you do?

I'd even go as far to say that a stronger kibitzer should not interject his opinions over a weaker teacher/reviewer.

If what is being taught is wrong, it can be corrected later. (lots and lots of caveats and addendums here obviously)

I feel it can do more [learning] damage to the student to have too much and possibly conflicting information thrown at them at once. Depending on their level, some basic concepts can be taught with needing to get into deeper details.

For example, perhaps a teacher might say, "instead of responding locally here, you should play somewhere over there" (perhaps pointing to some large vague area). Whereas the stronger kibitzer might have a more exact or specific area to play in (and perhaps even a totally different area of the board), and maybe even for different reasons. But the general idea being taught was learning to tenuki or simply to recognize when the local situation is safe (enough).


I'm not sure I'm correctly saying what I want to say. And this type of advice can always be taken the wrong way and to the [wrong] extreme.

But often, the "weaker" teacher can better see where the even weaker student is being tripped up (because they thought similarly themselves not long ago), whereas the stronger teacher misses the point of the student's mistake and so is in fact teaching too advanced of a concept for the student to grasp yet.

On the other hand, I think a student should get as strong a teacher as possible (not just someone a few stones above them), but the topic here is "too many cooks in the kitchen."

Being able to teach go is not dependent on one's go strength (within reason --> caveats and addendums, etc., of course)

The teacher should then, of course, only try to teach what he confidently knows best. If he's not sure, then say so. Maybe then invite input from the stronger kibitzer, or as judicata says, "let them take over"


I actually do my best learning while teaching, because I start to see my own mistakes more clearly.

Well, maybe it's just my own idiotic interpretation, but I've noticed that sometimes when a stronger player reviews with you, they act rather arrogant. They make it seem like these are obvious moves that you should be seeing, and that you should see immediately. I'm not saying every player is like this, but I've ran into a lot of strong players that seem to have this mentality.

Basically, if someone is reviewing with me, I don't want them to be too harsh. I want them to be kind. I guess it's more out of the sake of my confidence that I prefer this, but oh well. Then again, I'd rather someone be direct too, instead of being too soft. I guess it can be tough to find a middle ground. But a phrase that I find works well is: "I see your intentions behind the move, but this doesn't exactly work here." or "While that move has its merits, this move is probably more crucial here."

As I'm typing this, I'm not sure if I make too much sense, but I guess what I'm saying is I don't want someone to look down on me just because I play like an idiot.

That being said, I've also noticed it's often better to review with someone you know rather than someone you don't know.

_________________
Slava Ukraini!

I probably err on the side of not being forceful enough--I usually say "I would play here, because..." or "I think this is better."

I have definitely seen condescending reviewers. But I've also seen reviewers, usually online, that are just direct and to the point because it is faster than typing a bunch of caveats. So, they'll say "this is better," or "this is wrong" to save time/space. Of course, they should make sure the "reviewee" understands that, but I can't fault them for the practice.

I feel that you learn the most from the harshest reviews, as what the stronger player tells you sticks in your head better. Guess it depends on your personality though and how you handle criticism.

I suppose it does depend on the personality, because I do not learn a thing from someone I feel is belittling me. But it's probably just a mindset thing. Honestly, all it makes me want to say is, "look, obviously there's a reason you're 2k and I'm 500k." Having a harsh review, especially after a game you really tried your hardest, can be more disheartening than anything else.

I'm not suggesting the reviewer has to be soft in his/her approach, but don't be condescending about it.

_________________
Slava Ukraini!

I suspect most people feel this way... but it is possible to change the way one accepts criticism, to learn to accept it positively -- regardless of how it might have been intended.

When I play a game that is not a teaching game I or my opponent might say "Shall we go over the game? We then replay the game and discuss situations which we feel are interesting, e.g. investigating possible move improvements or variations. We go on with this as far as we want, often reaching well into the endgame. Sometimes the review takes longer than the game, even when the game was a slow one

When I am the receiver of a teaching game it is usually with a pro and what happens depends on the time available and whether I am paying or not. If I'm not paying, e.g. a 3-on-1 at a congress, I would expect the pro to point out my five or so worst mistakes and a better way to play in each case. If I'm paying, it depends on how much time is available. Usually the pro decides what to tell me or work on with the time available. If it is a regular lesson situation then there may be suggestions for what to work on until the next lesson. If I'm giving a teaching game, I usually pick out several serious mistakes and discuss them in some detail, such as topics like keeping your stones connected, keeping away from strong groups, not using a weak group to attack, making your stones work together, making your move work efficiently, tenuki, balance, etc.

At my level, it's appreciated when they explain the basic concepts I am violating.

At my level too.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207