Handshakes

[Phil Neatherway]

Kevin Thurlow said:
I assume Phil is asking if he can refuse to shake hands as his opponent was so obnoxious, he doesn't want to...

Actually it was my opponent who refused to shake hands, after he blundered in a drawn position (as he saw it). Apparently he felt I should not have played on.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Actually it was my opponent who refused to shake hands, after he blundered in a drawn position (as he saw it). Apparently he felt I should not have played on."

That is daft - the position is drawn when you start, either player can try to change that assessment! Carlsen has won a few games from theoretically drawn endings against top opposition. OK, you wouldn't play on with (W) Pf4, Be5 against Pf5,Be4, kings anywhere...

(Edited after Reg spotted stupidity.)

[Richard Bates]

Is it insulting to prepare for the pre or post game handshake by putting on gloves?

[Reg Clucas]

OK, you wouldn't play on with (W) Pf4, Be5 against Pf5,Bf4, kings anywhere...

Certainly not. You would instead examine the scoresheets to determine how you came to have 2 pieces on the same square!

[Paul Cooksey]

I am always tempted to start a poll on "What do you think happened to the original poster?" when someone starts a thread with a question that I suspect is not hypothetical. I would have got this one correct.

I do turn down invitations to discuss the game if I think someone has been cheeky - lots of draw offers, playing on a rook down for an hour, etc. But I would need to be very upset to refuse a handshake. I don't think it has happened, and if it did happen to me I'd put it down to the other person being upset to lose rather than taking it personally.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Heh. Here's a question. Has anyone ever felt offended (or disappointed) when an offer to analyse is declined by the winner of a game? Sometimes it will be because there is no time (or space) available, sometimes it will be because your opponent may not want to because they may feel that their time is, ahem, better spent elsewhere and they don't really want to explain where you went wrong (or to reveal opening secrets). What about declining requests to analyse - does everyone here try and do it politely, or are you sometimes more brusque?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Certainly not. You would instead examine the scoresheets to determine how you came to have 2 pieces on the same square! "

Well spotted - I've edited original.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Has anyone ever felt offended (or disappointed) when an offer to analyse is declined by the winner of a game? "

I was more offended by the IM who reported the result then crumpled up the scoresheet and threw it in the bin. One GM told me he was happy to analyse with opponents he had beaten if they had tried to do something in the game - if they had just grovelled throughout, he got annoyed with them!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Did the IM win the game?

I have a vague memory in the dim and distant past that there might once have been a convention that the loser (doffing their cap respectfully at the same time <I am being a bit sarcastic here>) should wait for the winner of a game to suggest analysing it, rather than being an upstart and suggesting an analysis session. The status of the opponent (titled or not) may matter. Sometimes the loser of a game can't resist asking where they went wrong, and doesn't realise that the winner of the game may have no interest in analysing.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I'm not generally a big one for analysing just after a game and never have been.

I can be more amenable to it after a shortish break when I have had a brisk walk and time to clear my thoughts.

[LawrenceCooper]

Heh. Here's a question. Has anyone ever felt offended (or disappointed) when an offer to analyse is declined by the winner of a game?

If I'm playing a stronger player then I'd welcome their input. Most are polite and will offer a few helpful comments even if not willing to do a post mortem. By the same token I try to be courteous when asked regardless of the result of the game.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Way back I think we shook hands only at the end of the game. Now it's often three times: 1 on arrival at the board, 2 just before the clock is started, 3 at the end of the game. Away from chess I think some other nationalities, particularly the French, are more frequent shakers than the British.

Number 2 is still fairly unusual in my experience.

I suppose we have all encountered the kind of utterly limp "handshake" that seems to be popular with young players in particular?

[Kevin Thurlow]

The IM did win and he obviously thought he had won more comfortably than I thought he did... I played Tiviakov at Guernsey and felt it was a cheek asking him to analyse, although I did ask him briefly where I went wrong and he told me briefly (but not in an unfriendly way.) I noticed he didn't really analyse with anyone there. In the Polish event where I played the IM, there wasn't even an analysis room. Obviously they expected people to just shake hands and clear off. Post mortems seem to be a British thing.

[Nick Grey]

Shaking hands may be a British thing.
Sometimes dropping hand, and putting thumb to the nose or making a loser sign may be better.
5 Point Palm Exploding Heart Trick may be a bit extreme.
Kissing offered hand from a female may increase those taking up the game.
Always best to wash hands frequently and removing excess sweat.
Organisers to supply sanitary gel like all hospitals.

Limp handshakes are unacceptable.

[Reg Clucas]

I suppose we have all encountered the kind of utterly limp "handshake" that seems to be popular with young players in particular?

'Popular' may not be the correct description - I think it's simply that no-one has educated them in the correct etiquette.