I am not sure if this fits in with the idea of good sportsmanship, but as a TD I once watched a game between a strong master and an expert in the last round of a tournament that determined first prize between the two players. The expert was doing very well and the master was becoming increasingly nervous. Both were in time pressure. The expert made a beautiful sound sacrifice. The master’s face fell, but he made a move in reply. The expert sat there for three minutes and his flag fell. The master was elated, relieved, and astonished by his good fortune.
After the game I asked the expert what happened. He told me he knew he was winning, had plenty of time but did not want to win that game. He said that the master was poor and needed the money. They were friends and he often had lent him money for an entry fee or invited him out during tournaments for a meal. He liked to play just for the sake of competing, but the master needed to play.
Is that last example good sportsmanship, or collusion? If a player throws a game because his opponent is a friend, he is likely affecting prize distribution elsewhere in the tournament. In this case, his 4 points (if it was a 5-round event) might have been good enough to clinch the Expert prize, while his opponent friend wins 1st overall. Had the Expert played on and won, his prize might have been only slightly larger while his friend’s would be considerably smaller, leaving more for the other players.
Bill Smythe
There was only a first prize to be won by either of them. They were ahead of everyone else by a full point. The only player affected negatively was the expert. The class prizes started at U2000. There was no collusion between the players. Before the round I thought the two of them would probably take a quick draw and split the prize. The master, who is now deceased, did not know his friend let him win. Usually, their game were fought to the last pawn and the expert had his share of wins. This time, the expert told me, he realized the game meant more to the other guy, not just in terms of chess but in life.
When you think about it, most tournaments are set up in a very stark way with only one first prize plus class prizes to attract attendance. The bitter fight for 1st place among a small group of real contenders often spills over into rivalries and enmity among them. Then when one of the players becomes dominant, the others begin to diminish playing because they see they have little chance at the prize. The major events have multiple prizes. If there was only one prize, I don’t think there would be many people showing up to play. In either chess or poker.
Lately I have noticed that the major events are changing formats. Players in the 2100 -2299 range are having to compete for smaller prizes, if anything at all. For prize purposes it often seems that it is better to be a B or C player than an expert or a master. I know, someone will say you shouldn’t be playing for prizes but for the love of the game, but the sporting aspect is taken pretty seriously.
I agree with Smythe Dakota that this was poor sportsmanship even if there was no collusion.
Throwing a game is against the rules whatever the reason. For at least one game, this player was also a sandbagger.
As a TD with knowledge of this, you should have refused to submit the game for rating and listed it as 1F-0F. You also should have warned the offending player that such behavior will not be tolerated.
Are you serious?!?
The guy let his flag fall so his opponent would receive the prize money he really needed. This fellow was unaware of the other simply allowing the flag to fall for this reason, so there was no collusion.
The ratings would not be drastically effected by the one game, either way.
It certainly was within the first players rights to allow his flag to fall. If he would have purposely blundered, this would have had the same effect, and there is no rule stopping this fellow from purposely blundering or allowing his time to expire without collusion.
It was obviously a very kind and good act of sportsmanship. Let it be.
Yes!
Even though there was no collusion, this does not mean that what the expert did was ethical. If you reread my first post, you will see that I stated “even if there was no collusion”.
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting your comment here, so rather than get it wrong, I’ll just ask "are you saying that throwing one chess game because it does not “drastically” change the ratings is acceptable behavior, but throwing many is not? It would be helpful to know where in the rule book you found this.
You are incorrect. The rule book disagrees with you. According to the code of ethics Standards of Conduct, it lists examples that are considered unethical. Paragraph 5c (page234) states:
Deliberately losing a game for payment, or to lower one’s rating, or for any other reason; or attempting to induce another player to do so. Deliberately failing to play at one’s best in a game, in any manner inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship, honesty, or pair play.
The key words here are “for any other reason”. The expert told the TD what he did and his reason, so I don’t think the facts are even in dispute. This TD chose to look the other way. That the expert let his time intentionally expire rather than playing a bad move doesn’t change what he did.
“Obviously” is a word that is sometimes used by writers to avoid having to actually explain why. Both I and the rule book disagree. I believe that we would be entering dangerous territory if we start allowing thrown games under certain circumstances. If you feel this strongly about it, then the proper procedure would be to submit a list of exceptions to the rules committee. If they agree, then this section of the code of ethics would be revised.
I see nothing wrong with the expert having instead given his opponent a gift equal to the prize. In this way, he would have both followed the code of ethics and financially helped his friend.
I’m more than willing to change my mind on this. The only thing I require, is to be pointed to the appropriate rule(s) that permit this expert’s behavior without violating the USCF Code of Ethics.
I guess you just don’t get it.
This Master had pride and would not do well accepting a “donation”.
The Expert and this Master had a long history of playing contested and competitive games.
The Expert was acutely and sorely aware of the financial distress of the Master at that time in history.
They had played a long and close game to the end of the time limit. The game could have gone either way with normal play.
The Expert, being the one that consistently did not perform as well over the chess board as the Master (otherwise he would be a Master himself) took a moment and realized all the above.
Yes, the Expert broke the letter of the law. Yes, the Expert let his time lapse for “some other reason”. However, he did not let it lapse for sandbagging or “gaming” purposes. He let his time lapse as a gesture of kindness and donation to the Master.
He did so in such a manner that the Master was unaware of the situation. The Master needed the money for survival. The Expert did not.
By definition, Masters are not amateurs in Chess. In this case, the Master in question apparently used his tournament winnings as a substantial part or all of his income. The Expert, an amateur by definition, realized this and knowingly and simply let his last couple of minutes expire in the game, ending the game and giving the Master the win for the game and the tournament. In this, the Expert saw the bigger picture of life outside of the competitive ring.
I find this an amazing statement. I think that most of us would agree that intentionally throwing a game is “obviously” an act of bad sportsmanship. How you can reach the opposite conclusion, and then expect it to be obvious, is beyond me.
Alex Relyea
Alex, take a moment and consider this “act” in the scheme of Life, not only the competitive arena we call Tournament Chess.
I think a crucial fact may have been left out of the story. The author of the story said this might not fall under the category of good sportsmanship. I used the term sportsmanship too loosely.
I admit that a better word than sportsmanship would have been something like human-ship or being a “big guy” or something else.
The Expert just loved the competition. The Master needed that competition and success in it for his very livelihood.
In that very instant in time, the winning of the game lost its significance for the Expert. He understood the humanity of the game, after all.
I’m inclined to agree with relyea. In our recent tournament, one of our club members threw a game to a junior player because the kid seemed like he was about to cry. I don’t think he was doing the kid a favor. (The next round, he beat the kid’s more composed older sister without compunction.)
As I said before, I wasn’t sure if it fit into the category of good sportsmanship. The incident in question occurred long ago in the 1980’s in the post-Fischer doldrums. In some places there were fewer opportunties to play and #'s of entries in tournaments were sliding downward. The economy in the rust belt was also becoming worse each year. Many masters had already moved on to other work and abandoned chess, just as many masters today have abandoned chess for poker. It was surprising that the master continued to play, but gifts given by Caissa are hard to give up. He had a dwindling number of students and fewer events to play. I have known a few people who have sacrificed much for art, music, and even chess. His love for the game was passionate and he was one who declined charity, welfare, or unemployment checks. Pride? Maybe, but his ethics precluded him from taking anything he felt he hadn’t earned for himself. He lived in simplicity and poverty until he died from cancer.
The expert was well off, I will not go into details so as to keep his identity secret, but he too had an exceptional degree of ethics. And charity. I think Ron understands that concept of charity very well.
I have some questions for Harold S. and Relyea: how many GM’s and IM’s, or even C and D players, have you forfeited for taking a quick draw in the last round so as to secure a prize? Certainly, they are not giving their best effort. I know some guys that are living on the edge and really need the prize money. Are all games played at major events played at full energy? At World Opens I have seen quite a few last rounds of tournaments played with glasses of wine and bottles of beer sitting by the boards. Do you question the motivation of every player in an event? Do you check on the relationships that players have with each other?
In the incident in question, I did not see any collusion. There was no agreement, except perhaps the one the expert has with his deity. Yes, I could have taken his freely given answer and used against him. I could have been that officious and cruel. I could have congratulated myself that I had followed the precious rulebook to the letter. I could have turned a quiet act of charity into ashes. How ethical would that be? I have seen the disdain and lack of respect that some TD’s have for competitors; they are just a source of income and free nights in fancy hotels. I hope you don’t have that attitude, or if you do that you hide it well. Otherwise, you will see fewer players in your events.
Great post. I can see some of the points made by others and even concede them, but in my opinion, the other (non-chess) points you made trump that - and given all the facts stated, you handled it well. 
Da*n, I might pull a muscle, throwing a compliment out toward “that other” Pennsylvania city… 
I’ve never sanctioned a player for playing a quick draw, although I’ve never had reason to believe that a draw was pre-arranged. There is a world of difference between two players in an approximately equal position not deciding to fight s hard as possible in a game, and agreeing to a share of prize money and two players colluding before the game that one of them would lose for other valuable considerations. Please note that that’s explicitly not what I’m suggesting happened here. I believe that the master had no clue that the expert was going to lose on purpose, and didn’t give him anything for doing so.
Would you feel the same way if the winning player was just a point away from an IM norm, for example, and the player who just sat there in a winning position and let his flag fall was out of the money? I don’t see a difference. It might have been good friendship, although I doubt it. It seems pretty clear that the master would have known that the expert lost on purpose, which makes it charity. Sorry, but throwing a game, no matter the circumstances, can’t be considered good sportsmanship. Generous, perhaps, but not good sportsmanship.
Alex Relyea
I do get it. Just because someone has sympathy for someone else’s financial situation, doesn’t give authority to behave unethically. I asked for some sort of guidance in the rule book to where it is acceptable to throw one game and since none was provided, I take it that you acknowledge that the expert’s behavior, according to the rule book was unethical.
According to the TD’s post, the expert was winning when he intentionally let his flag fall.
You are consistently justifying the behavior of the expert. In my previous post I stated “I believe that we would be entering dangerous territory if we start allowing thrown games under certain circumstances.”
This is not a rhetorical question. Under what circumstances would you allow the throwing of games? Keep in mind that as soon as you open up the door, even a little bit to this kind of result manipulation, anyone else who wants to dump points will use the same excuse. Is this a path you would like to see to rules go? Feel free to disagree, but allowing it, even on this one occasion, is looking for trouble.
I don’t buy your definition of master. There are hundreds of chess masters in this country and the majority of them are not professionals. My peak rating was 2219, and I never for one minute considered myself better than amateur status.
I have long believed that pre-arranged draws should be scored as double forfeits. The problem is in the proof. I have on several occasions asked players about their short draws. While I strongly suspect I have been lied to, my problem is that short of hearing the conversation or a witness who did, it’s difficult to justify a penalty.
I did on one occasion sanction a master who approached his forced last round opponent for the act of asking for a draw before I even posted the pairings. He did it in front of a witness too. Although it was many years ago, I think I told the offending master that he would lose time on the first time control.
The integrity of the game was put into question by the actions of the expert. He never should have done it. I understand having sympathy for the struggling master, but when the expert manipulated the result, he crossed the line from ethical to unethical and you, as TD, legitimized his unethical behavior. The expert’s “act of charity” was poorly thought out.
relyea wrote:
You make a very good point. Throwing a game to a financially disabled friend so he can earn a title would likely lead to future income in the form of appearance fees and reduced entry fees.
As you point out, the reason could be the same as the originally stated case, but it’s still unethical.
If the expert felt like being charitable, he should have played on, and then donated the prize money if he got any. That would have achieved the same result with no ethical issues. I’m sure the expert would agree that this would have been preferable, but in the heat of the game he probably wasn’t thinking clearly about the options. “Donating” a norm-clinching game is never justifiable.
The expert had one of those rare moments in life where one has a chance to understand what the consequences of an action would have on another person. In the end, he just froze not able to make the winning moves that would hurt someone else. Not everyone has a killer instinct.
No one was hurt. No other prizes were affected. No norms were in the balance. The “integrity of the game” was not affected. It is just an example of the inner game that goes on. You can go argue among yourselves, but I am fine with my own morality in that situation.
Hmm, just a thought, Harold. I guess you must be torn up inside when you see an older child let a youngster win a game of Candyland. Think of the ethical implications! 
Discussions like this always remind me of the one REALLY obvious “GM draw” I’ve ever seen in a tournament. Perhaps this belongs in the bad sportsmanship thread instead, but since we’re on the topic…
It was a 5 round weekend tournament, with 1 game Friday night, 2 games Saturday, and 2 games Sunday. The top two players in the open section were both rated at least 150 points above anyone else. They’re also friends, who carpooled to the tournament together (nearly an hour drive from where they live). After the first 3 rounds, they were the only 3-0 players in the top section, so everyone knew they’d play each other Sunday morning. So the rest of us show up and start playing Sunday morning, and there’s nobody on the top board. About an hour into the round, the two IM’s show up together, sit at the top table for all of 10 minutes, and agree to a draw. I have no doubt that they probably played out 15+ moves by both sides in a very equal and drawish opening variation. But given the circumstances, I also have no doubt that they planned in the car ride up which variation it would be.
I have only experience one really bad example and I absolutely was delighted by it.
My opponent after obtaining a lost position started throwing pieces off the table.
I calmly said “I’ll consider that a resignation” and then calmly picked up my pieces (my set BTW).
If no one gets hurt, does that make it ethical? I’ve heard arguments that so-called victimless crimes should be legalized for the same reason.
The integrity of at least one game was affected.
As a certified USCF chief tournament director, you agree to to follow rule 21A “Responsible for all play, the tournament director must see that the rules are observed. The director is bound by the official rules of chess, by USCF tournament rules and code of ethics, and by all USCF procedures and policies.”
In your defense I will say that it appears that any statute of limitations would have long ago expired and the rule I just quoted may not yet have existed.
I have a problem with a director knowingly submitting a game in which result was not legitimate, for rating. As this would not have had any effect of the prize you paid, you could have easily have submitted the game as 1F-0F so as to prevent the thrown game from having any effect on the ratings. As this was before MSA, the master might never have known.