[19:25] Nyantori Sedai: hey, thanks for your commentary in my other game!
[19:25] Nyantori Sedai: really appreciate
[19:26] shamisen: oh glad u saw it, you’re welcome
[19:26] Nyantori Sedai: nowadays online player just leave the game once finished without doing review~
[19:27] shamisen: yeah i used to play on KGS in high school and reviews and teaching games on it happened a lot more
[19:27] Nyantori Sedai: I hope in the future more people will do review as habit, and it become OGS culture
[19:27] shamisen: hm i think partly it’s because of UI (user interface)
[19:28] shamisen: it’s up to the website developer to make that culture too
–
In Japan, it’s called “検討” (kentō), which literally means analysis or review.
In the context of board games like shogi or go, kentō refers to the process where both players, often together, sometimes with observers. replay and analyse the completed game to understand key moments, mistakes, and possible alternative moves. It’s considered an important part of the learning process and also a demonstration of mutual respect between players.
In a typical kentō session:
The players reconstruct the game from memory.
They discuss pivotal moves or strategies.
They may explore “what if” variations.
The tone is usually collaborative, not competitive.
Kentō** is more than just post-game analysis;** it is a deeply rooted part of board game culture. It reflects a player’s genuine care for the integrity of the game and their respect for the opponent.
This would be fun and educative at the same time, but I think OGS doesn’t facilitate this kind of group replay with commentary and discussion (but I could be wrong of cause).
there is a ‘review’ feature, but I noticed it will lead the player to another window (separated from the main game).. it actually pretty good for a ‘review room’, but maybe in term of user experience, is not very effective. not sure
at KGS, when in ‘review’ mode, only one player take control the board (usually the winner, stronger level opponent, or the first one who initiative to review).
the other player (and the audiences) can only watch the review, they can not make any move or do any activity other than chat conversation, unless the teacher handover the control.
Noticable UI change: both player can notice the UI changes when one of them switching the mode into Review mode. the audience can notice ‘hey, the game ended and now they are reviewing the game’
I also think its more a people problem rather than a feature problem.
Id be so happy about some feedback/variations etc. after the game but I dont wanna force someone, at the same time I dont wanna give ‘help’ to my opponents out of nowhere in fear of annoying them after they lost
OGS already has (or had, if it is moribund) a parallel, structured, review culture in which players sign up to get get their games reviewed and to review games in return. It was established and run by @mark5000, who could perhaps address its current status.
Oh i totally agree that it’s a people problem first.
But even if we assume people want to stick around after a game, and review, technology can still stand in the way. For instance, I can’t imagine doing this online:
At least not without a collaborative tool like @godeon shared
First of all, the type of high level kentō you reference above - especially where both are able to reconstruct the entire game from memory - IMHO this is something that only fairly high level players would be capable of - maybe like 2 kyu and up? Just an estimate…
My experience with playing correspondence games on OGS is that - some opponents are fine with a high level of text interaction during and after the game, and some barely want to react at all besides the formalities at the beginning and end of the game (i.e. “have a good game” / “thanks for the game” etc)
For those people who ARE comfortable with a high level of interaction, I’ve had some pretty in-depth and useful de-briefs at the ends of games. Yes, I’d agree that this is the exception rather than the rule - but I guess I’m advocating for a “be-the-change-you-want-to-see” kind of thing, and encourage discussion about the game WHILE the game is in progress, and I feel like this type of social connection then makes a post-game conversation more likely, and easier to suggest. My 2 cents.
I think that’s about the level where I started practicing it more often, and being able to get toward the endgame before forgetting the move order a bit. I can remember the endgame shapes, so more or less the end position of a game, just the endgame order not so much.
That’d be my next goal
I think that’s the nature of online play in a way. I probably wouldn’t want to review my random chess game online for instance afterward, unless it was a teaching game.
It’s not because I don’t understand the importance of review, I pretty much review every Go game I play now. It’s just I wouldn’t be that into chess, and probably not going to be at the level where players want to review their games much. Probably they’d rather just get into another game quickly.
Not to mention the fact your opponents might not speak your language
At the egc in Germany I had a guy say a whole spiel after the spiele in German, and then get up and go, except I don’t speak a word of German so I kind of just nodded XD
It has happened a couple of times to me that some ‘stranger’ added a review after one of my games but I simply could not figure out how to use it properly. I felt a bit uncomfortable, because (1) not being able to figure out what someone was pointing out and (2) not being appreciative to that person for taking the effort to comment. Is there a simple tutorial somewhere around here (or elsewhere) for the review part in the menu?
To be honest, the review thing is super easy to use… and there really is no better way to figure it out than by playing around with it yourself on one of your played games.
HOWEVER!
The caveat here is that when someone does a review on a game that you have played, they aren’t always going to do it with the mind of helping you, the other player. Seldom do other people leave meaningful commentary, and or clean up the plethora of variations that can arise when doing a review.
I do reviews specifically for people on a semi-regular basis, and I enjoy doing them…. Still, when I do them, there is a concerted effort on my part to keep the reviews clean of too many variations that make navigating the review more difficult than it really needs to be.
But yeah… have a play around with the feature and see what you can and can’t do, that’s the best way to do it, honestly.
I tried adding post-game review (unsolicited) to someone else’s game today and was told to stop, probably because it spammed him with notifications. Which makes me wonder if I annoyed your opponent even if you enjoyed the review… So it definitely is both a UI and people problem. I’d be happy to spend more of my time on it otherwise.
you are free to review moves of my opponents,
but I wish to review my moves in my special way only, that would guarantee that I know how to defend the square better than how to attack
I see that you review my moves in 2 games in a row, thank you, but I’m becoming worried that you going to continue to spend too many your resources on creating a data that I don’t need
How can you be so sure that there will be no benefit to share your knowledge in that case? I mean what’s your goal? If you deliver your studies, everyone can go further.
Unless you have a specific goal against someone, I think this is a counter productive attitude
Once the game being finished there is no point in keeping for yourself your own view, instead you should try to go as deep as you thought to advance in your go together with your opponent.
IMHO for a majority of players on internet there is no point of taking the time to share your opinion on various pov during the game and that let me think that simply the expectations are not the same, more fun because more playing but less interest in progressing.
Although tools for a Kento practice may be improved (please come with suggestions) I am not sure that will change much the attitudes. Players will rely more on the post game analysis with AI and you don’t have to memorize the game either.
I’m mostly worrying for players who only played online, and who may never enjoy this side of the game.
I usually go over my games right afterwards, come up with variations for my big mistakes and share them in the game chat. Sometimes my opponents share their thoughts too.
If people are annoyed by the notifications, they can turn them off.
It may be counterproductive to you… But no one is entitled to anyone’s time, thoughts, experience, or indeed reviews.
This whole attitude that I’ve seen in this thread about how things should be, or could be, or whatever, fails to take into consideration that some people like to review alone, or come back to a game days or even weeks later, because that is an option we have when we play online.
And as I said… unless I specifically offer someone a review, they aren’t entitled to my time to make a review for them… I offer reviews semi frequently… and im in a dscord where someone can ping me for a review if they want to, so I’m all about helping one another, but this idea that we should be locked into a period of time after a game is played to go over every minute detale is going to cause more harm than good, if indeed that is the expectation that people are willing to set.
It is also true that some people have a life outside of Go, squeezing in games when they can, before moving on with their day and getting back to whatever it is that needs to be done in the real world. Then there are simply people who want to play as much as possible, so reviewing games becomes a pain for them.
There are many reasons why this after-game study isn’t done, and it’s mostly not done, because most games occur online… which isn’t exactly the best place to facilitate these kinds of over-the-board studies, is it?
This whole idea has come across as needlessly preachy for me, and I’m not about that at all! People should be entitled to engage, or not engage, in Go however they see fit.
Maybe it’s because those interested in progressing believe they can easily review with AI.As for the answer to this thread: we can’t build a kento culture in online Go, regardless of the server—even KGS these days. Players already have their own “teacher.”
Kento is only relevant for offline players who usually play at a Go club or Go salon.
