Here's the trick: Insult your future opponents or those they are associated with. That way, when it's time to shake hands at the start of the game, they'll refuse and be forfeited, at least in FIDE events. That's what happened in today's (non-) game between Nigel Short and Ivan Cheparinov. Much more on the matter here, for those who are interested, but I'll reproduce the relevant FIDE rule here:
Any player who does not shake hands with the opponent (or greets the opponent in a normal social manner in accordance with the conventional rules of their society) before the game starts in a FIDE tournament or during a FIDE match (and does not do it after being asked to do so by the arbiter) or deliberately insults his/her opponent or the officials of the event, will immediately and finally lose the relevant game.
What do you think, readers? Is this the dumbest rule ever, an attempt to mandate hypocritical acts of respect for even the most vile opponent? (I mean this as a general point, not a remark about Short in particular.) Or is this a reasonable attempt to put the game above personal disputes and nationalistic squabbles?
Related Posts (on one page):
- Short - Cheparinov to be replayed tomorrow
- Short - Cheparinov: How to win quickly in chess
Neither. It is a way to make sure off-board squabbles remain off-board. The rule - and its strict observance - sends a strong message to players that when they come to a chess tournament, they better check their disagreements at the door. Chess is more important than their little egos. I support this rule and its strict application. I don't think the rule forces people to "shake hands" because it requires the players to greet the other in a fashion that is customary in the player's society.
If Cheparinov really wanted to get back at Short, he should have given Short a nice Russian bear hug and followed it up with a kiss on his cheek. I would have loved to see an stuck-up Englishman deal with the resulting emotional trauma during the game.
Russian Gambit: I don't understand your "Neither". How does your answer differ from my second option, that the rule is "a reasonable attempt to put the game above personal disputes"?
Short must be thanking those "dunderheads" like Dainalov(sp)for putting this rule into effect. Even better is Kramnik being on the appeals committee.
In any case Cheparinov really hurt his chess with this, i doubt the people at corus will be itnerested in bringing him back any time soon.
It doesn't. I didn't read your third option before posting my message. Anyways, since we are nitpicking, I think I should point out that it's not clear whether you listed two options or three options. The "is this ... or is this" construct suggests that you listed two options, but you started your comment with "is this the dumbest rule ever" which I considered to be the real "first" option. When I said "neither" it applied to the "dumbest rule ever" option and the second option which was the "hypocritical rule" option. I can't believe I'm being so anal about this...
I'm surprised that you responded to the "neither" comment. May be you also have a small ego like I do. Beware, for I am a Maori and I shall rub my nose against yours next time we play.
The point about hypocrisy was a suggested explanation of why it's a dumb rule.
As for the Maori custom, it's fascinating...but I'd prefer the Japanese tradition of a slight bow (even to handshakes - especially given many people's questionable hygiene).
On the other hand, it does not even grant a handshake or any other greeting, since a player may not be forced to deny the handshake if the other one does not offer it, right?
Esteban
Yes. And a "neither" response is grammatically and semantically appropriate for the question "Is this the dumbest rule ever, an attempt to mandate hypocritical acts of respect for even the most vile opponent?" The "neither" response is appropriate because I don't think the rule is dumb and neither do I think a rule is dumb just because it is "hypocritical."
18:00 Kramnik, through his manager, has decided to resign from the appeals committee. Adams, as from the same country as Short, resigns as well. They will be replaced by L'Ami and Krasenkow.
20:15 The game will for sure not continue today, as the decision of the appeals committee is still not available. However, Nigel has been seen storming out of the room, saying "They want me to play tomorrow! No way I am playing tomorrow!"
Esti: Thanks for the comment. Kramnik and Adams did the right thing; Short, maybe not. Even if Cheparinov is a scurrilous scoundrel for his behavior, Short isn't exactly taking the high road. Then again, there's something pleasant about seeing Team Danailov lose a forfeit point for bad behavior. It's a nice reversal from Toiletgate.
This thread is fun, but I'll never finish on the games if this keeps up! :)
Now please finish on the games. I promise to do my part of the bargain by making sure this the last post from me on this thread. :-)
Obviously there is a lot of work FIDE is going to do on this before issuing a new rule. Whatever they do, I sure hope the off-the-board humbuggery will stop. I doubt it.
Chess arbiters should enforce the rules of chess, not social etiquette.