Post mortem: Helpful or not?

Post mortems are generally worth the time for me, either for receivng good info or giving something of worth.

One rare type of post mortem I experienced at a local chess club was with one guy I beat fairly handily. He kept saying What would you do if I did this. I told him that I didn't want to play a whole other game. He seemed intent on somehow turning that loss into a win.

More common and more distressing is when during the post mortem it becomes very clear that you saw much more than your opponent, even when you've lost. Especially when I've lost I say to myself How can you lose to this idiot? a la Nimzovich.

I've got to be realistic though and acknowledge that I must be a dumbass in turn.

Such a post mortem can really be a psychic drain.

I agree with whats been said, and thats why Im not into them much.

firstly, I think its always better to investigate and tear the game apart by yourself first, then move on to a stronger player and ask what he thinks of the lines, and then move on to a computer if theres still knowledge to be gained.

usually I dont even go that far though. when Im looking at game later (REST is important to me) I try to focus on the points I believe to be key, and points where I felt the most stressed/confused.

secondly, I agree with the OPs last point.. the part where its essentially the winner bragging and the loser being a goody-goody, dispite possibly only a 12 point rating difference.

unfortunatly its the same in books a lot. they will praise the winner of a game the whole way through, and the loser will be questioned every step of the way... despite the game being equal til move 23. its like a hollywood script- good guy, bad guy, moral (avoid giving up the bishop pair for nothing blah blah blah)

Sometimes I size up my opponent to see if they are the type of person I want to do a post mortem with.  Some people are just looking for self aggrandizement in the post mortem, to either feel better after a loss, or lecture you after a win.  But some people are genuinely interested in a respectful exchange of ideas, and those are the types I don't mind doing a post mortem with. 

But much worse to me, then the post mortem is the crowd of spectators who gather around your game if its one of the last ones going, hemming you in on all sides.   I haven't done it yet, but one of these days I'll be stopping my clock and asking the tournament director to clear away the riff raff.  I don't know if that's something a player can request by USCF rules but I guess I'll find out. 

trysts said... 

Game three, and there were a few people watching our game as it concluded. It was drawn. Handshake. "Good game, thanks." He started saying, "You know you could have won if you would have..." I smiled and started to get up to leave. He said, "Here, sit down I'll show you." I said, "It's quite alright, I want to look around." Then he said, "You're actually really good. It's called a "post mortem". Here sit down and I'll show you something." 
I smiled and walked over to some book shelves to browse. Somebody, not my opponent said, "She's kind of stuck up, isn't she."

Trysts is not the rude one here.  She simply did not participate in the sandbox play after the competition was done.  The opponent did not ask her to join her, he ordered her. She walked away for her own reasons which are quite legitimate and actually nobody's business except her own.

"Post Mortem" is an appropriate term.  

Are we obligated to participate in the autopsy of a loved one immediately after their death?  How about discussing the way that your loved one died with the actually murderer?  Doesn't sound fun for me.  

Clear

I find post-mortems useful because they give me an idea of what my opponent is thinking in his situation in the openings I play. It is quite useful to know and understand the plans of your opponent (sure you should know this from your repetoire book but why say no if your opponent simply hands over the info in a post mortem?). Not only that, my opponent sometimes spots great plans for my side of the opening. So I'm filled with new ideas next time I play that opening. I don't see how it can be bad.

""Post Mortem" is an appropriate term.  

Are we obligated to participate in the autopsy of a loved one immediately after their death?  How about discussing the way that your loved one died with the actually murderer?  Doesn't sound fun for me."

That's hilarious, Clearcanada! I don't know if I've ever loved one of my positions that much, that was eventually murdered

What if you created someone to love, but they ended up being murdered, but you were given a chance to use your murdering nemesis' logic to figure out a way to create that perfectly loveable yet indestructable being (who'd hopefully end up being a murderer themselves) which can murder the murderer...would not a post-mortem be the way to use a murderer's logic against him/her/them-self or, more accurately, reduce the number of those murderers in the world actually capable of killing your loveable murderous creation(s)?   Not exactly.  You can create and destroy any number of virtual loveable prototypes with less emotional attachment using an engine.   You'd be a virtual god, though one could argue that real post-mortems may hasten the process somewhat (or not).          

It would make me a bit uncomfortable to have the murderer of your loved one do the autopsy:

 "Come over here. See, this is where I cut the artery of your friend."

Yet that is what we do when we play chess:  murder, get murdered, ask advice on how to do the former without experiencing the latter, the cycle of genesis and apocalypse never ends...

You're talking about 'christian chess'. I don't play 'christian chess'.

I like vegetables and I know they are good for me, but I am not big fan of being force fed them when I have just finished a meal and just want to get up and stretch my legs.  

Who wants the kid next to you in class telling you what you did wrong on the spelling test?  Who enjoys the teacher asking you to sit down and listen?  

"gg" is appropriate.  The smile and handshake and not telling him to stuff his post-mortem went above and beyond.  Not ripping out the throat of the patronizing, sexist observer was admirable self control.  :)

Did anybody in that room stick up for you trysts?

To sum up... no force-fed vegetables, no forced autopsies, no problem walking away after saying gg, and no unsolicited advice.  It is not stuck-up, it is self respect.

It wasn't quite that intense, Clearcanada! No tasers were pulled. My opponent came up to me afterward as mentioned, and was really nice about everything. I'm pretty quiet when not on the internet, and when I bartend, or cocktail, if you don't giggle at some of these guys after every absurd drunken thing that comes out of their mouth, you get called a lot worse than "stuck up"

Then what's with the "bishop" or the king with the holy cross on his crown or his highness master Ruy Lopez?  

No, but I'm seriously...life, death, chess are not necessarily christian.  In fact, the earliest chess references and chess terminology are from India and Iran from what I gather.  The post-mortem concept I am unsure about, maybe that is christian.  

There is a lot of reincarnation in chess (rebirth in the form of a new game) but no life after death (once a piece dies, it cannot be reborn)...quite unchristian.

There are 4 horseman on the board, but 2 are on opposing sides and theoretically their expected fate is death, as opposed to heralding the era of death...although I wouldn't object to being able to promote one of my pawns into 4 horsemen instead of a queen. That'd be awesome, then I'd be willing to play christian chess.   

What does this have to do with the value and etiquette of post-mortems?  Nothing, although there is the loose relation of the word "mortem" and the above rambling.

Sorry, I've had to put up with some intense chess drama's lately so I have been puffing up my chest and being a little over the top.  

This is me putting a sock in my mouth.  :)

i never knew post mortems existed. i`ve never been put in that position. although whether u want to be in it or not. it could be a good lesson for the day. to make you a strongr player

Or it could make you drink earlier than you had planned to.

I think that's fair enough, sometimes you just don't want to do a post-mortem, and it's not rude at all to politely refuse, but I disagree about the nature of it, especially the psychology elements.

All the post-mortems I've done were done in the spirit of mutual respect and love of the game. If anyone did it in the "I shouldn't really have lost" vein, or the "this is where you went wrong, pupil" vein, I would do the same as you, and leave, it really isn't helpful to anyone, and is just all about ego in that case.

I,too,would rather analise the reason for losing later,rather than right after a game,but there are some people that may not appreciate not most mortem discussion

Post-mortems can be extremely instructive experiences, especially against stronger players, but even against someone you beat, if only to understand their thought process...

I don't usually like to discuss the game with my opponent either. I would rather analyze the game either by myself, or with someone else. After a long rated game I don't analyze right away, instead I like to play some nice, casual, blitz chess to cool down before the next round.