My son and I play tournaments, and locally we meet each other often. In the last round of some tournaments, when we are paired, we agree to a draw after a few moves. We never discussed this before the game. It just made sense to us as a draw allowed us to split the money. No fuss was ever made of the draw(s). And we went home, everyone seemed happy.
Then in my last tournament, a quick quad, my son was having a bad day. And as it happened I wasn’t doing so great either. Being a quad I was paired with him and after a few moves I knocked my king over and resigned, without any foreknowledge on his part, I couldn’t stand the thought of making him more miserable. A few minutes later the TD puts the rule book in my face showing me the chapter on “fixing” a game. Fixing isn’t the word in the rule book but it was obvious I was being accused of cheating! The cross-table shows an F for my result and an X for my son’s result.
I leave it to the readers, was I cheating? Were the draws in the last round of a championship tournament less meaningful than a small money quad? I guess I don’t see the reason for being so literal in this situation. Perhaps the TD could have seen the more personal reasons for the quick resignation? I think a lot of controversies could be avoided if people saw things in a more broader perspective.
I supposed I can predict the barrage of stones being hurled my way now… 
I find this to be a rather questionable practice. (A questionable practice may be widespread but nonetheless can still be questionable.) You are not playing a contested game; you are just agreeing to a result in order to split the prize money.
In this case, I think the TD may have overreacted. Nonetheless, your decision to resign is strongly influenced by your familial relationship. I don’t necessarily find that questionable, but I can understand why the TD’s hackles were raised.
There is a difference between a draw in an equal (or nearly equal) position, and a resignation in a similar position. I have no problem with players agreeing to a draw in a nearly equal position, even at a very early point in the game. Throwing a game, for whatever reason, is a different story.
To answer the title of the thread, it’s prearranging the outcome when there is a meeting of the minds before the game. It sounds like none of your examples fall into this category. However, I think that throwing a game is at least as serious, and it sounds as though that is exactly what you did here. If you had offered a draw in that position, I would have had no problem with that.
It’s sad that your son had to suffer for your bad behavior.
Alex Relyea
We pretty much accept tossing a half point, but draw the line at tossing a full one. Doesn’t sound all that consistent, does it?
Had the dad accepted the pairing and just not shown up to play, the son would have got the point. Or if the dad deliberately hung his queen and then resigned, the director would have a bit harder time justifying a forfeit and and “x”. Had there been actual prearrangement for the dad to fall into some well known trap, there would have been no questions asked. So, real cheating probably would have gone unpunished, but an impulsive resignation hits 'em both.
All this leaves me with an uneasy feeling, but I don’t think the director had much choice. For one thing, the game impacted the rating system and the other players in the event. Bottom line: sometimes, it’s important to maintain the illusion of fair play and a real contest.
I think of games between the Byrne brothers, slugging it out. It’s the way it ought to be.
I don’t think you were “cheating” as this implies collusion on the part of the players. The TD was a bit over the top in sticking a rulebook in your face. I have seen a number of players in last rounds who just weren’t in the mood to play anymore, had a pairing they felt unfavorable - playing a friend, enemy, or relative- and decided to call it quits for the day. Sometimes they offered a draw or resigned rather early in order to go home. Not everybody cares about rating points or the purity of the rating system. Yes, they could have withdrawn, but sometimes a player feels funny doing that. TDs don’t like it when you drop out of a quad, too.
On the other hand, think of your son. What did he learn from having that happen? The awkwardness of the situation is a lesson in sportsmanship. Sometimes you have to stick it out and play. Perseverance is its own reward regardless of the result. Having a bad day sometimes leads to learning new coping skills. Being given a free unearned point or seeing your dad embarrassed by an overly officious TD is not something he would want to have happen. And so what if he loses? He still has a dad who will take him out for dinner and ice cream.
I’m not surprised that responses vary on this post. My raising the past times we agreed to early draws (note we agreed after we started the game) was important as it establishes a habit of us agreeing to conclude a game early. So it was no great surprise to my son when I resigned the game early as we didn’t feel like playing anymore. It seems if others do it it is no big deal, but because it was a father and son there is some moral lesson people want to attach to this situation.
Do other people agree to draws early? Are you kidding me? I have been in the final round of MANY tournaments and my opponents tend to be very interested in offering a draw or accepting one, in those final rounds. So it is very logical and I think just fine.
I also think the TD overreacted, moreover he was not there when we concluded the game!
His “opinion” was that I threw the game to allow my son a chance to win the money. I was so offended by that that I withdrew from the tournament immediately. Does my son need to learn lessons from Chess? Look up his rating and you’ll see he’s learned plenty of lessons. He (William) achieved a rating of 1963 (150+ above me) by 15 years of age, which is not too shabby, so he’s lost and he’s won. No, I don’t feel there is a case to be made about his missing out on some moral lesson.
I am however making a case that my son’s game that he won against me should be rated. And my reasoning is that if I went to a tournament and made 5 moves against someone and resigned it would be rated for that opponent. Why is it not rated simply because my opponent is my son? Because I am being accused of cheating??
If I were cheating then it should not be rated. But if I was not cheating then it should be rated? There, answer that!
The TD is making an erroneous assumption I cheated.
Whatever was going on in my head when I resigned early, I’m not sure is relevant. I plan to appeal this, or else, what lesson would I be teaching my son? Hmm? That I cheated?
The PGN of the game in question would be relevant evidence here.
I do think it’s natural for a tournament director to hold results between relatives to a higher standard. Personally, I don’t doubt your word as to your motivations. However, a draw offer would also have ended your son’s suffering.
Well that’s interesting. In one tournament in which my son and I agreed to a draw, we were vying for the class B prize. Two were vying for class C and two for class D. All boards took early draws! So my son and I were the only true offenders on this point? Because we were “related”. See, your “higher standards” must be weighed against hard facts. Sure, we can say relatives are more likely to throw a point because there is an interest between them. But is that really true? Perhaps this is just one of those prejudices some people have. It happens I would have accepted a draw in that last round against anyone. It happened to be my son.
No pgn, sorry. It was a G29, notation was not required. But why does that matter? I fully admit to resigning early with no “chessic” reason to do so. That is, I did not hang my Q, mate was not inevitable, etc. Ah, but neither did I cheat! Show me in the rule book where it says I cheated because I resigned early in the game. You’ll have to take the TDs word. 
Had I had even the slightest idea my action would be considered cheating I would never have done it. But the TD went too far and I have to defend myself against an unjust accusation.
First congratulations on taking the time to play chess along with your son.
If you violated anything I would say it was more in the order of failing to play at one’s best in a game.
Was there anyway that this pairing could have been avoided by the TD?
Yes and no. It was a quad so the pairing was forced, but pairing them earlier in the event could have avoided this.
Was there more than one quad?
Sorry, I disagree that I exhibited unsportsman-like conduct. Firstly, since the definition of sportsmanship is subjective. Otherwise then the definition at
http://conferenceusa.cstv.com/ot/c-usa-sportsmanship.html is as good as any, wherein it says:
Well, non of that happened. 
The USCF code of ethics can be found here: http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7538/35/
Perhaps you should have hi-lighted “or for any other reason”? That’s so broad as to be silly. Apparently it’s left open intentionally so that subjective circumstances, which cannot be predicted, can be handled at the TD’s discretion.
Something I did not mention is that when we started the game I offered a draw but my son turned it down. A few moves later I didn’t feel like playing anymore, so I resigned. I see no unsportsman-like conduct. I simply did not want to beat him. I know my son, he was very discouraged starting our game. After I resigned we played some blitz and I beat him 3 in a row. The reason I did was because I wanted to show him how one’s psychological state can ruin their game. Perhaps it would have been unsportsman-like to beat him in the real game knowing him as I do, and taking advantage of his emotional state. Would that have been better?? It’s all so fuzzy and gray isn’t it? This was not a case of premeditated game fixing. I did not cheat. A case can be made I took the sportsman route by not backing up the car and running over my son again!
It appears that some opinions state I did not cheat. The question I want answered is: why is the game not rated then?
For TDs making similar decisions in the future, I highly recommend giving the “customer” the benefit of the doubt. Some “love” would be appreciated…
It appears to have been in the 2nd round, not the last round.
You claim that it’s OK to deliberately lose a game (cheating, no matter the reason), because you have a moral high ground. The “silly” rules are for commie cheaters, but if your son is a boy scout and you vote Republican, then they don’t apply to you. The well-being of your son and yourself is what matters, while it doesn’t matter that other people in the quad might have been cheated out of their prize money as the result.
I disagree with previous posters that there is a higher standard for family members or that there is some kind of “moral wrong” that you have done. No, I don’t question your morals. However, in terms of chess rules, throwing the game IS cheating. Many who feel an attachment to the chess culture, would have found a different way to console their son.
The game score sheet is the key evidence for your appeal to have the game rated. If the score sheet is not convincing that a real game took place, your appeal would be denied. That’s the chess side of the story. God will judge the morals.
Michael Langer
Most likely because, from your very own statements, it’s clear that you deliberately lost the game.
Your insistence that this be treated as a real, ratable game seems rather desperate.
The game shouldn’t be rated because it wasn’t a real game. You argue that had you pitched a game against a stranger, it might have gone unpunished and been treated as a normal game, which may or may not be true, depending on the director and the reactions of other players. This implies games between close relatives get subject to greater scrutiny, not that throwing games is OK.
The “code of the West” in chess seems to be that one can offer a draw, even in a winning position if the draw is to one’s advantage, but one can’t deliberately pitch a game. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it may be somewhat inconsistent that one can pitch a half point but not a whole one – that’s just the way it is. Bottom line: throwing a game is considered to be wrong and you threw that game. From your anecdote, your son didn’t do anything wrong because he had nothing to do with your action.
My dad and I never played much chess, but we used to play checkers often pretty seriously. He was much better than I, and if I ever thought he’d deliberately thrown a game to me, I would have been thoroughly humiliated. That you had already offered a draw and he turned it down, whereupon you resigned – this seems rather petulant.
Posters here have been generally supportive to you on this; it’s good that you and your son play tournament chess together. But my advice is drop this insistence that what you did was OK and that the game should be rated. Once you accept the pairings and the clock starts, you have a sporting obligation to play your best (subject to the perhaps inconsistent option of a draw) even if you don’t feel inspired.
Extremely well stated.
[quote=“MikeMurray”]
We pretty much accept tossing a half point, but draw the line at tossing a full one. Doesn’t sound all that consistent, does it?[/quote
I understand your argument, but reject it. I don’t consider it “tossing a half point” if one agrees to a draw, or offers a draw, in a position that is approximately equal. I once was playing near a game that was K+B+P vs. K where the player promoted to a bishop, proceeded to practice his technique for mating K+B+B vs. K, and deliberately stalemate on the last move. He mentioned after the game that he was trying to bring (or keep) his rating down. Had I been in charge there, I would have certainly objected, even though the player only tossed a half point.
Seems consistent to me.
Alex Relyea
I would choose to highlight a different portion of this rule. It’s clear that Mr. Nesham deliberately lost the game “for any other reason”, and therefore was cheating, despite his protestations to the contrary. Maybe the TD didn’t handle this as well as he should, but maybe he was too lenient, too.
Alex Relyea
I was thinking more of a case such as Player-A needs a half point in the last round to win the tournament. He’s playing Player-B, and gets to a point where he has a won game but there’s still some play left, he could lose if he blunders, etc. He offers B a draw, even though he’d be expected to win. Or take the famous Rubinstein anecdote where he was offered a draw, turned it down, then with a winning position forced a stalemate, saying something like, “With Wolfe, I make a draw when I want one”.