No rule about it. ... it's not uncommon practice either.
Often enough a draw will put both of us through a group... whereas a decisive score will knock one of us out. Generally it's not worth the risk.
That said, I often meet friends in tournaments, where I'd rather just draw my way through and let someone else 'deal with them' :P.
no
Lastwarrior, that is the strangest game I have seen in many years. I've never seen a game where one side keeps trying to give a Queen away and the other side keeps declining to take it. Then tries to give his own Queen away and it is not taken. Was this an actual game? Were the players trying to lose intentionally?
Lastwarrior im failing to comprehend the strategy of the game play for both players.
It really is a strange game indeed.
The "agreed" draw is the reason why chess is not a sport and doesn't belong in the Olympics. It's just too chicken s***. I think a game should have to play at least 50 moves before a draw can be agreed upon. The databases are all cluttered up with worthless chess games which amount to nothing more than a manipulation of a system.
Is that possible? I've noticed that in some tournaments I'm in people have agreed to draws before the opening phase has ended. This let both parties advance in one. Not sure what the motivation was in the other. I am not opposed to players agreeing to a draw after an attempt to win has not been fruitful but in these games no attempt to win was ever made by either side. Seems of questionable ethics to me but maybe that is wrong since there is no rule against it.