Reviewing after your game: Western tradition only?

[daniel_the_smith]

My wife is writing an article on go for her class, and she was wondering: Is the practice of replaying your game with your opponent and trying to help each other something we only do here in America, or does it happen in Asian countries as well? How about in Europe/UK? Chess players don't seem to do that, is the difference because we have a small community and they don't?

In the local Korean clubs I've been to, it seems like only the really high dans ever do this, those below 5d or so just play play play play.

[amnal]

It certainly happens in the UK, both in clubs and at tournaments.

I didn't know it wasn't common in chess, or even in Korean go clubs. It seems natural to finish the game and want to discuss where the moves weren't good - the different perspective of the opponent is always interesting!

[Bill Spight]

When I learned the game in Japan, it was customary to review every game together afterwards. It was not customary in the U. S. among Westerners. I am happy to hear that that has changed.

[xed_over]

But does the review have to take as long as the game itself?

I'm no longer striving to be pro, and don't have time to spend an hour and a half to every game, so I'd rather either just play with no review, or have only a short 2 or 3 point review.

I'm quite happy to remain an eternal 5kyu. Am I being rude to refuse a review then?

[Koosh]

Honestly, I really depends on if people both parties are seriously trying to improve or not.
We all enjoy different aspects of go.
Some of us want to record the game afterward in a blog/notebook, and replaying the game once with an opponent can help with remembering it.

I don't really feel comfortable asking for a review unless it's a good friend. I usually just ask the simple, "Where do you think I went wrong?" That usually leads to a few points of interest. Good enough for me, but not for everybody.

[dfan]

My wife is writing an article on go for her class, and she was wondering: Is the practice of replaying your game with your opponent and trying to help each other something we only do here in America, or does it happen in Asian countries as well? How about in Europe/UK? Chess players don't seem to do that, is the difference because we have a small community and they don't.

Chess players absolutely do this all the time, at all levels from mediocre amateurs to world-class professionals.

[hyperpape]

I haven't given up hope that I could move up a rank or two, but it seems that I'm a 3-4-5 kyu for the long haul. And I still enjoy a good long review, analyzing variations and whatnot. Sometimes I lack the time or the energy, but otherwise it's fun, even if I don't know whether it helps me improve.

Edit: I hope I don't sound like I'm saying you have to review, just making the point that it doesn't have to be a part of rank-chasing.

[Bartleby]

Chess players don't seem to do that, is the difference because we have a small community and they don't?

Not that it's particularly relevant to your question, but dfan is right. Post-game reviews are common practice in the chess world. I've probably played 300 or 400 games of tournament chess over the years, and I can only recall a handful that I didn't review with my opponent afterwards.

[Kirby]

I think reviewing games happens in Japan and Korea, sometimes at least. When I played at a club in Japan, they often reviewed the game afterward. And if you watch pro games on BadukTV, for example, the players start reviewing the game after the match.

In my opinion, go players in the West are very serious about the game. There are people that are very serious about the game in Asia, too, but some people just play for fun.

I think that's why, when I play on Tygem, some of my opponents don't seem to care about joseki or playing in a way that I might see in a go textbook. They just play moves the moves that they want.

I get the feeling that, while there are certainly people serious about the game in Korea and Japan, some people are just pretty good at the game, while not taking it as seriously.

[xed_over]

I haven't given up hope that I could move up a rank or two, but it seems that I'm a 3-4-5 kyu for the long haul. And I still enjoy a good long review, analyzing variations and whatnot. Sometimes I lack the time or the energy, but otherwise it's fun, even if I don't know whether it helps me improve.

Edit: I hope I don't sound like I'm saying you have to review, just making the point that it doesn't have to be a part of rank-chasing.

And just because someone doesn't want to review, doesn't mean they don't want to improve. Reviewing may be the best and fastest way to improve, but perhaps not the only way.

Sure, when I review (either alone, or with my opponent), I usually enjoy it. And I do want to get better, even if its just a little bit at a time. But I'd rather not be expected to do a full-blown review after each and every game. I think there's a time and place.

For example, a lunch-time game at work seems the wrong time to spend 2 hours playing then a full review. I'd rather it be a 30 min game with maybe a quick point or two about my biggest or most common mistakes.

[gowan]

I suppose could be a matter of whether the players take the game seriously or not. That is, were both players trying hard to find the best moves. If it is a fast game then I wouldn't expect a review because both players would be making bad moves frequently. Otherwise I'd say it is a matter of politemess. If one player wants a review there should be one.

[daniel_the_smith]

Thanks for all the responses I guess I'm misinformed about chess players...

[DrStraw]

Not that it's particularly relevant to your question, but dfan is right. Post-game reviews are common practice in the chess world. I've probably played 300 or 400 games of tournament chess over the years, and I can only recall a handful that I didn't review with my opponent afterwards.

Now that is interesting, because when I was learning go over 35 years ago the only games I did not review were tournament games: there wasn't time - we had to play the next round.

Edit: not quite true - we rarely reviewed the games play after 4 or 5 beers (for USA people that is 5 British pints of strong beer - not 5 American hop pops.)

[daniel_the_smith]

Oh dear, she found the AGA songbook...

[jdl]

Edit: not quite true - we rarely reviewed the games play after 4 or 5 beers (for USA people that is 5 British pints of strong beer - not 5 American hop pops.)

Thankfully, craft beer is easy to find over here in the U.S. I'd be interested to know if there is a strong correlation between being a Go player and enjoying good beer. Given a sample size of "people I know" the answer is "yes".