What makes a draw "prearranged"?

Question

A prearranged draw, if proven (how?), will earn the players a -:-. Now consider this situation: Today, in a big kids tournament at our club/school, two players from the same school were paired, and played 1.e4 e5 - draw. The tournament director gave the two rascals the talk about birds and bees and unsporting behavior: "Either you play an earnest game or double forfeit". I was main arbiter and had my doubts, but kept my big mouth shut. Where to draw (sorry) the line between the unalienable right to agree on a draw following the rules (i.e. after two half moves and no Sofia in effect) and a prearranged draw?

Answer 1

What makes a draw "prearranged"?

There has to be convincing evidence that the draw was agreed before the game. When the two players play nonsense moves and then agree a draw that is prima facie evidence that should raise suspicion but is not completely conclusive. More evidence is needed to justify awarding 0F-0F.

I know of two recent cases, one at a very high level and one at a low level, where this happened.

The very high level case is the (in)famous Dubov - Nepomniachtchi "Dance of the Knights". Although the moves themselves were highly suspicious it was the ChessBase India video of them prearranging the draw which proved conclusive.

The low level case occurred in the last round of the Isle of Man Major/Minor. Halfway down the field two players played 1. e3 e6 2. Ke2 Ke7 3. Qe1 Qe8 4. Kd1 Kd8 - draw. Unfortunately the arbiter came along as they were completing the game and tried to replace the kings and queens on their original squares. They explained that no, they had each moved their highnesses to their new squares and were agreeing a draw. After checking the scoresheets the puzzled arbiter decided to refer the case to the chief arbiter of the main GM tournament. He interviewed the two players who admitted that the game had been prearranged.

I have played in several tournaments where I have seen the tournament leader in the last round play a few moves before offering his or her (I've seen cases of both) lower rated opponent a draw allowing them to pocket the prize money before catching an early train or plane home. There is no good reason why these examples should be prearranged.

Similarly there are several top level siblings who usually play out standard draws when they have to play each other. These may be mildly suspicious but as long as none of the moves are nonsensical there is no grounds for further action.

Answer 2

A draw is pre-arranged if it was agreed upon by the players before the start of the round.

However as long as some move is played on the board, arbiters will hardly ever assign a -:- result. If the players challenge the decision, it's gonna be up to the arbiter to show proof that the draw was pre-arranged rather than a decision taken on the spot.

Answer 3

The tournament director gave the two rascals the talk about birds and bees and unsporting behavior: "Either you play an earnest game or double forfeit"

This was not within his power and he should know that.

I was main arbiter and had my doubts, but kept my big mouth shut.

You probably don't want to hear that, but: this - step in and correct him - is your responsibility as arbiter! Basically the job of an arbiter is to protect the players. Not only from one another but also from anything from outside disturbing them. If, e.g., it is too loud (too cold, ...) in the tournament room it is your responsibility to step in and correct that.

There are the "FIDE Laws of Chess" and there is a even "higher ranked" document, which - in case of disagreement - takes precedence: "EDC Code or Code of Ethics". These two documents are the sole source for judging a practical game and no tournament director can change that.

If they (the tournament organisators) want to have Sofia rules then the tournament must explicitly say so in the announcement. If this was the case, then the tournament director should have called an arbiter and the arbiter should have decided. If this was not stated in the tournament stipulations then the TD was way out of his rights and the boys could protest - not only for unfairly molesting them but also for him overstepping his bounds.

Look, if you don't like the boys making quick draws I can understand. Still, there is a difference between stating clear rules (before the tournament) and making them up on the fly. This TD might next null a player refusing to play a sacrifice for "cowardly play". Equally outrageous but more obviously so.