Answers.Body: <p>The most brazen example of this occurred in a tournament in 1975 in Luton, England when Tony Miles (Britain's first native born over the board IGM) and Stewart Reuben (now a respectable member of the FIDE rules commission) agreed a draw without playing any moves. Miles needed a draw to win the competition and for Reuben a draw against a much stronger player guaranteed him a high place in the tournament.</p>
  
  <p>It ended badly, however, when the arbiter decided to award both players 0.</p>
  
  <p>According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_in_chess" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> the relevant rule used was:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>a player may only offer a draw at the moment he has made a move and
    must then start the other player's clock</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Today this wouldn't quite work. The relevant rule section is:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5
    must be considered.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>But this situation would be covered by the general:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>11.1  The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-26T11:01:53.667Z
Answers.Text: wow!  and one dude is a respectable member of FIDE RULES commission? RULES? wow!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-26T11:25:30.963Z
Answers.Text: @Fischer In Britain there is currently a TV series running called "It takes a thief to catch a thief" ;-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-26T11:34:49.490Z
Answers.Text: that's true, so true
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-26T10:14:05.610Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-12-26T11:17:39.893Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-12-26T11:17:39.893Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.Body: <p>Yes.<br>
  But most players are much smarter with how they do it by using  other ways than you suggest.  </p>
  
  <p>Two GMs could agree to play a tame opening that is known to be  drawish then settle for a draw after 20 moves or whatever the current rule limit is.  </p>
  
  <p>Personally I think they should have to play at least 40 moves if not the whole game until a  draw is the only legal outcome due to lack of material or stalemate. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-22T20:15:02.847Z
Answers.Text: I didn't downvote you, but you should really tone down a bit. Words like 'fascist bullies' tend to attract downvotes. Complaining here won't help, and if they're really serially downvoting you, those votes will be reversed: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/126829/295232
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-22T20:17:08.223Z
Answers.Text: I did not say you did.  You merely had that post ahead of when  I arrived.  How else would you accurately describe someone who goes around looking for posts by someone and down-voting them en masse?
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-05T17:02:17.847Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-05T18:21:01.477Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-12-05T18:21:01.477Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.Body: <p>In a nutshell, current rules allow pretty much any sort of "spontaneous" agreement to a draw at the board, even if one side is staring at a forced mate in 6. If money changes hands or the results were agreed to before sitting down to play, it's a violation of the rules, but it's hard to enforce because folks who do that do it without witnesses to the act.</p>
  
  <p>The "Sofia Rules" are an attempt to combat that, we'll see how long they last and whether they get applied to more than a few top tournaments.</p>
  
  <p>If an official has evidence, he can declare a game forfeit, but that is subject to appeals where the evidence must be presented. If an official becomes known for doing it capriciously, no one comes to play; if a player gets the reputation for "selling points" he is often invited to play in tournaments where the goal is to get one or more players some title norms. So you can see the field is tilted in favor of the players. Not saying that's good or bad, just saying it is.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-10T20:15:24.897Z
Answers.Text: my question was voted down and someone voted to close it because i said that GMs sell points or manipulate the results, I assume that's the reason and now you sir are confirming my statement, i know  it happens because it happens in every game, chess is just another game, manipulating results happens in all sports, but shouldn't they forbid the player or GM who's doing it and strip him from his title?  `if a player gets the reputation for "selling points" he is often invited to play` if that's the case, it sounds like everyone knows it and no one willing to investigate.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-11T05:19:57.610Z
Answers.Text: It's one of the dirty secrets of top-level chess. It happens, and not just by players selling points. http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4002954 tells of entirely fake events. Today's sexy cheat method is by using computer assistance, but the older forms of it linger: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=154611 It's not good, it's not fair, but it happens, and far more people know about it than investigate it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arlen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-11T22:35:39.170Z
Answers.Text: I'm amazed by what i read! unbelievable! juventus manipulated the results of the italian football league, Serie A and was sent to the 2nd devision, serie B, just imagine what would FIFA do if they were in charge of chess! Wow
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-27T10:13:42.263Z
Answers.Text: And it really doesn't just happen in top level chess. I once played against a teenager in the last round of an open. I was pretty exhausted and blundered an exchange. I immediately offered a draw, bc I figured in a few moves it would become obvious, that I was just lost. I left the board and he followed me and said, that he could still win a rating prize if he beat me. But if I would compensate him for the rating prize, he would take my draw offer … I said "Forget it!" and walked back to the board. In the end he took the draw and smugly told me, that he couldn't attend the prize giving anyway.
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-10T18:50:54.567Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-08-10T18:50:54.567Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arlen
Body: <p>Take the following scenario, which may happen in tournaments that's why I'm asking my question:</p>
  
  <p>A famous old GM who's not playing well plays against some teenager who's very strong, The GM will be embarrassed to lose against some teenager, the GM has a lot of money, the teenager needs money for college. So the  GM pays the teenager so he could win.</p>
  
  <p>Or maybe could they manipulate results by mutual agreement, like what happened to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/jun/13/1982-world-cup-algeria" rel="noreferrer">Algeria in the world cup 1982</a>. Could they agree to eliminate an opponent? What the rules has to say?</p>
  
  <p>I know it's against the rules, i just want to know how they investigate it and what are the rules about it, and yes i'm also asking about draws, since manipulating the results isn't only about winning and losing.</p>
  
  <p>And I'm also interested in knowing if the officials can deny a draw, if they see that the game is still playable or if they see something suspicious about it. And could you draw at any stage of the game: like <code>d3</code> <code>e5</code> and they agree to draw here, is it possible?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-10T17:38:31.700Z
Comments.Text: This wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_by_agreement deals with how organizers try to address GM draws.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-10T20:27:16.470Z
Comments.Text: @Akavall thanks for the article, it sounds like the FIDE isn't doing anything about it, but he's letting the organizers handling it, the wiki article is full of `ethics` and `etiquette` and no true actions, sounds like i'm reading the bible where you just hope that the reader have the good will to follow the rules :) so imagine if you enter a tournament and in order for you to advance, one of your opponents have to lose, but they rather agree to the `GM draw` or due to `practical considerations`  or as that article said `none of the players care to win` and you cant do anything!
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-10T21:55:48.777Z
Comments.Text: guys you know i don't mind if you vote me down 100 times, it's your right to do so, but would you be kind to say why? why you vote up the questions about cheating using an engine and vote mine down? manipulating results is far worst than using an engine. And why you vote the question down and the answer up? The answer proves my statement, at first i thought you were voting down because im attacking GMs and i had no right, but the answer given proves me right, or do you only want to highlight on this site how bad engines were as if players were saints?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-10T22:02:24.737Z
Comments.Text: as i said it's your right to vote down, but i think i deserve to know why, now more than ever, since my suspicions were confirmed, or give an answer that proves me wrong, let me feel bad about asking my question, i feel that you agree with what i said, but you just would like to close this question, let it be a secret that no one knows about, and let this site be fun and you know, lets not talk about it, that's how i feel... one reason is enough, let me feel bad and sorry about my question because right now i'm still feeling proud about it
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-11T19:46:28.770Z
Comments.Text: To address some of Fischer's concerns about voting: There has indeed been one vote to close, but seemingly not for the reason that you assume in your comments, as the closing reason the user selected was "unclear what you're asking." As for the down-voting, you write, "why you vote up the questions about cheating using an engine and vote mine down? ... And why you vote the question down and the answer up?" But you're assuming that the two users who down-voted your question also up-voted the answer and the other thread(s) you mention, which seems *highly* unlikely to me.
Comments.UserDisplayName: ETD
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-11T19:47:58.820Z
Comments.Text: In any case, if you want to solicit further discussion about voting and commenting (which I do think might be a useful general discussion for the site to have), please open a meta thread for it, as that will work better than further discussion in the comments here.
Comments.UserDisplayName: ETD
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-11T22:25:48.570Z
Comments.Text: @EdDean, no there's no need for discussions i was just surprised by what happens, i mean usually if the question is low quality, it is either closed immediately or voted down, and if someone decides to answer a low quality question, he should criticize it, you know, because if you don't criticize a low quality question, it means your answer is not good and should be voted down.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-08-11T22:30:35.517Z
Comments.Text: @EdDean And i didn't assume that the same people who voted down my question voted up the answer, because when my question had 2 downvotes, the answer had none. I assumed that users voted up the answer didn't mind my question being voted down, so they sort of agree that the question should be voted down and not the answer you know
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-12-17T01:09:40.690Z
Comments.Text: It is amusing and somewhat ironic that @Fischer chose his/her particular moniker and posed this question while apparently being unaware of [Bobby Fischer's loud complaints about Russian match fixing](http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1074080/) fifty years ago. Or maybe this question is just part of the impersonation... ?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Kyle Jones
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-12-17T12:13:12.657Z
Comments.Text: @KyleJones wanna know the truth? what do you think? the truth is what you say it is, it always has been this way, it never existed... Regarding your question, I won't answer it, you know your truth and it satisfies you, but i can say that, assuming that i know the facts  you stated, i can't attack the russians besides, a question is no longer a question if you know the or **an** answer (because the answer you know might not be **the** answer) I might not know much but i know the truth is a lie, well that's a philosophical discussion that has nothing to do with chess
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lynob
Tags: <tournament><tournament-directors>
Title: Can chess players agree to manipulate the results?
ThreadText: # Can chess players agree to manipulate the results?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-08-10)
  
  Take the following scenario, which may happen in tournaments that's why I'm asking my question:
  
  A famous old GM who's not playing well plays against some teenager who's very strong, The GM will be embarrassed to lose against some teenager, the GM has a lot of money, the teenager needs money for college. So the GM pays the teenager so he could win.
  
  Or maybe could they manipulate results by mutual agreement, like what happened to [Algeria in the world cup 1982](http://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/jun/13/1982-world-cup-algeria). Could they agree to eliminate an opponent? What the rules has to say?
  
  I know it's against the rules, i just want to know how they investigate it and what are the rules about it, and yes i'm also asking about draws, since manipulating the results isn't only about winning and losing.
  
  And I'm also interested in knowing if the officials can deny a draw, if they see that the game is still playable or if they see something suspicious about it. And could you draw at any stage of the game: like `d3` `e5` and they agree to draw here, is it possible?
  
  **Tags:** tournament, tournament-directors
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: This wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_by_agreement deals with how organizers try to address GM draws.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 thanks for the article, it sounds like the FIDE isn't doing anything about it, but he's letting the organizers handling it, the wiki article is full of `ethics` and `etiquette` and no true actions, sounds like i'm reading the bible where you just hope that the reader have the good will to follow the rules :) so imagine if you enter a tournament and in order for you to advance, one of your opponents have to lose, but they rather agree to the `GM draw` or due to `practical considerations`  or as that article said `none of the players care to win` and you cant do anything!  
  > **username_0**: guys you know i don't mind if you vote me down 100 times, it's your right to do so, but would you be kind to say why? why you vote up the questions about cheating using an engine and vote mine down? manipulating results is far worst than using an engine. And why you vote the question down and the answer up? The answer proves my statement, at first i thought you were voting down because im attacking GMs and i had no right, but the answer given proves me right, or do you only want to highlight on this site how bad engines were as if players were saints?  
  > **username_0**: as i said it's your right to vote down, but i think i deserve to know why, now more than ever, since my suspicions were confirmed, or give an answer that proves me wrong, let me feel bad about asking my question, i feel that you agree with what i said, but you just would like to close this question, let it be a secret that no one knows about, and let this site be fun and you know, lets not talk about it, that's how i feel... one reason is enough, let me feel bad and sorry about my question because right now i'm still feeling proud about it  
  > **username_2**: To address some of Fischer's concerns about voting: There has indeed been one vote to close, but seemingly not for the reason that you assume in your comments, as the closing reason the user selected was "unclear what you're asking." As for the down-voting, you write, "why you vote up the questions about cheating using an engine and vote mine down? ... And why you vote the question down and the answer up?" But you're assuming that the two users who down-voted your question also up-voted the answer and the other thread(s) you mention, which seems *highly* unlikely to me.  
  > **username_2**: In any case, if you want to solicit further discussion about voting and commenting (which I do think might be a useful general discussion for the site to have), please open a meta thread for it, as that will work better than further discussion in the comments here.  
  > **username_0**: @EdDean, no there's no need for discussions i was just surprised by what happens, i mean usually if the question is low quality, it is either closed immediately or voted down, and if someone decides to answer a low quality question, he should criticize it, you know, because if you don't criticize a low quality question, it means your answer is not good and should be voted down.  
  > **username_0**: @EdDean And i didn't assume that the same people who voted down my question voted up the answer, because when my question had 2 downvotes, the answer had none. I assumed that users voted up the answer didn't mind my question being voted down, so they sort of agree that the question should be voted down and not the answer you know  
  > **username_3**: It is amusing and somewhat ironic that @Fischer chose his/her particular moniker and posed this question while apparently being unaware of [Bobby Fischer's loud complaints about Russian match fixing](http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1074080/) fifty years ago. Or maybe this question is just part of the impersonation... ?  
  > **username_0**: @username_3 wanna know the truth? what do you think? the truth is what you say it is, it always has been this way, it never existed... Regarding your question, I won't answer it, you know your truth and it satisfies you, but i can say that, assuming that i know the facts  you stated, i can't attack the russians besides, a question is no longer a question if you know the or **an** answer (because the answer you know might not be **the** answer) I might not know much but i know the truth is a lie, well that's a philosophical discussion that has nothing to do with chess  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2013-08-10. Score: 9 | Accepted answer
  
  In a nutshell, current rules allow pretty much any sort of "spontaneous" agreement to a draw at the board, even if one side is staring at a forced mate in 6. If money changes hands or the results were agreed to before sitting down to play, it's a violation of the rules, but it's hard to enforce because folks who do that do it without witnesses to the act.
  
  The "Sofia Rules" are an attempt to combat that, we'll see how long they last and whether they get applied to more than a few top tournaments.
  
  If an official has evidence, he can declare a game forfeit, but that is subject to appeals where the evidence must be presented. If an official becomes known for doing it capriciously, no one comes to play; if a player gets the reputation for "selling points" he is often invited to play in tournaments where the goal is to get one or more players some title norms. So you can see the field is tilted in favor of the players. Not saying that's good or bad, just saying it is.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: my question was voted down and someone voted to close it because i said that GMs sell points or manipulate the results, I assume that's the reason and now you sir are confirming my statement, i know  it happens because it happens in every game, chess is just another game, manipulating results happens in all sports, but shouldn't they forbid the player or GM who's doing it and strip him from his title?  `if a player gets the reputation for "selling points" he is often invited to play` if that's the case, it sounds like everyone knows it and no one willing to investigate.  
  > **username_7**: It's one of the dirty secrets of top-level chess. It happens, and not just by players selling points. http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4002954 tells of entirely fake events. Today's sexy cheat method is by using computer assistance, but the older forms of it linger: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=154611 It's not good, it's not fair, but it happens, and far more people know about it than investigate it.  
  > **username_0**: I'm amazed by what i read! unbelievable! juventus manipulated the results of the italian football league, Serie A and was sent to the 2nd devision, serie B, just imagine what would FIFA do if they were in charge of chess! Wow  
  > **username_8**: And it really doesn't just happen in top level chess. I once played against a teenager in the last round of an open. I was pretty exhausted and blundered an exchange. I immediately offered a draw, bc I figured in a few moves it would become obvious, that I was just lost. I left the board and he followed me and said, that he could still win a rating prize if he beat me. But if I would compensate him for the rating prize, he would take my draw offer … I said "Forget it!" and walked back to the board. In the end he took the draw and smugly told me, that he couldn't attend the prize giving anyway.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2014-12-26. Score: 4
  
  The most brazen example of this occurred in a tournament in 1975 in Luton, England when Tony Miles (Britain's first native born over the board IGM) and Stewart Reuben (now a respectable member of the FIDE rules commission) agreed a draw without playing any moves. Miles needed a draw to win the competition and for Reuben a draw against a much stronger player guaranteed him a high place in the tournament.
  
  It ended badly, however, when the arbiter decided to award both players 0.
  
  According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_in_chess) the relevant rule used was:
  
  > a player may only offer a draw at the moment he has made a move and
  > must then start the other player's clock
  
  Today this wouldn't quite work. The relevant rule section is:
  
  > An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5
  > must be considered.
  
  But this situation would be covered by the general:
  
  > 11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: wow!  and one dude is a respectable member of FIDE RULES commission? RULES? wow!  
  > **username_4**: @Fischer In Britain there is currently a TV series running called "It takes a thief to catch a thief" ;-)  
  > **username_0**: that's true, so true  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2019-12-05. Score: 2
  
  Yes.  
  But most players are much smarter with how they do it by using other ways than you suggest.
  
  Two GMs could agree to play a tame opening that is known to be drawish then settle for a draw after 20 moves or whatever the current rule limit is.
  
  Personally I think they should have to play at least 40 moves if not the whole game until a draw is the only legal outcome due to lack of material or stalemate.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: I didn't downvote you, but you should really tone down a bit. Words like 'fascist bullies' tend to attract downvotes. Complaining here won't help, and if they're really serially downvoting you, those votes will be reversed: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/126829/295232  
  > **username_5**: I did not say you did.  You merely had that post ahead of when  I arrived.  How else would you accurately describe someone who goes around looking for posts by someone and down-voting them en masse?  
  
  ---
  
  