>What is not clear? I have got two defined situations to
>compare. Me and THE foe. First case, I fight it wearing a
>shield and wielding my bare hand. Second, I fight it with both
>hands free. THE same foe, the same moment, the same
>everything. Am I more offensive in the second case? As far as
>I understood from your answers I am going to hit more often in
>the second case.

Finer nuances of unarmed defense and backfist are the unclear parts, as I have heard that they are more effective if you are not wearing a shield. H2H specialist warrior will dual wield his hands and is more offensive without shield. Assassin will not dual wield his hands as far as I know(but the unarmed skills will work better without shield. I think that the shield is still more effective means of defense). Felars will always dual wield their claws when wearing a main wield(but not a shield. I'm not sure about this when they are barehanded, though), including two-handed weapons.

>Mind you, I do not take other types of weapons into
>consideration now. I understand that hands are good when they
>are good. That is not the point of my interest.
>
>I just try to understand specifics in how DUAL WIELD affects
>HAND TO HAND combat and effectiveness of related skills.

It is rumoured that the related skills are more effective when you are not wearing a shield, but I don't know it for sure, check what the helpfiles say and go along with them. If you are not a felar and get extra damage for your h2h attacks, you are likely to be better off with a sword and shield or two swords(or sword and dagger).