On Dec 6, 7:01 pm, David Richerby
wrote:

help bot wrote:
The problem with premature agreements to draw is already handled by
the rules (which however, are not properly enforced).

Please cite the FIDE Law

Of course, David Richerby has no quote of me
stating that there is a *FIDE* law which handles
this problem. Here in America, "we" play under
the auspices of the mighty USCF (you may have
heard of it via Sam Sloan), which has its own
rules for competitive play.

Just to make a point, whenever discussion has
turned to the ratings of posters here, it is normal
and customary to specify "FIDE" when one is
talking about something other than USCF ratings --
that's how dominant (in terms of numbers) "we"
Americans are on these forums, how focused
it is on the wanky world of chess in the USA.
The exception is where the talk centers on titles
like IGM, IM, FM, or where the numbers are in
that same range (i.e. 2450-euros Phil Innes).

At one time, I was up on all the latest nuances
of Tim Redman-tweakings, but lately, I have begun
to focus more on winning on the board, not on
time or by a random technicality. So allow me to
merely paraphrase the rule I mentioned, rather
than do an authoritative quote:

*It is forbidden for two players to agree to a draw
before a real contest (understood: "of skill") has
begun.*

What this means is that after 1. e4 e5, 2. Nc3
....Nc6, 3. Nb1 Nb8, it is illegal to agree to a draw
"between friends" -- because of the above rule.

In practice, things are not always crystal-clear; for
example, I have accepted (but never made) a draw
offer while still in the late opening, because I felt
that playing on was tantamount to suicide, having
already been clearly outplayed. A petty pedant
could take the move number by itself and work up
a case that this was "cheating".


that prohibits the players from agreeing a
draw in a position that isn't obviously drawn?

As for FIDE, their rules can assume the presence
of arbiters at every board -- as unreal a fantasy as
time travel, aliens who look and talk like humans,
or 2.7% real inflation. One day I might just play in
some big tournament and later have someone come
up to me and say: "are you aware that since you
lost to five FIDE-rated players in a row, your result
qualifies for FIDE-rating purposes?" That's when
you'll see a posting here, asking how to calculate
a FIDE rating where you have lost every game.

'Till then, let the delusional posters talk of their
2450 FIDE ratings and near-titles; let them imagine
themselves as competing for world titles, under the
wicked honchos of FIDE (with an omniscient
arbiter at the board!).


-- help bot