Well, I've always been a fan of a remote controlled king that could topple over at will. Your opponent goes insane after his king falls over every five minutes, but you make sure the tournament director doesn't see the king ever fall over despite the repeated claims. Easy win!
I've also liked the remote controlled clock. I love it when my opponent is in time pressure and then the clock suddenly rolls away!
Actually, there is now a rule concerning floors and match play. If i recall it correctly, if the floor player's rating drops below the his floor while in the match then his floor is annuled. It was created after Smeltzers historic # of rated games in a year.
-KD
There's of course the issue of players getting a disproportionate number of draws in the last round of FIDE-rated norm-available tournaments when they are in a situation that a half point gets them the norm. If I recall correctly, the same problem occurs in Sumo Wrestling.
I remember an incedent years ago in a tourney in NC ( Land of the Sky ) in which the last round pairing was between a 2400+ player and a 2100. It just so happened that even with a win the 2400 wouldnt win anything but the 2100 would get several hundred dollars if he won for one of the under 2200 prizes. They made a deal and the 2400 threw the game in exchange for 50% of the money. I think this kind of deal making is impossible to stop.
Reb, this exact scam was detailed in Chess Life a bit back, and the TD DQ'd both of the players. Apparently they didn't do a good job of "keeping it under wraps", and failed pretty miserably under questioning.
So in some sense you're right, but as with all crime, it's all in the execution.
There's of course the issue of players getting a disproportionate number of draws in the last round of FIDE-rated norm-available tournaments when they are in a situation that a half point gets them the norm. If I recall correctly, the same problem occurs in Sumo Wrestling.
In a Sumo Tournament, each wrestler fights in 15 bouts, one per day. If they win 8, they get promoted in rank. If they only win 7, they get demoted. Then, on the very last day, all the wrestlers who've broken even throughout the first 14 rounds will miraculously win their last round bouts. What are the chances?
I think that book is called, 'why do drug dealers still live with their parents' or something like that in this country
it has other chapters on other stuff including the sumo wrestling one
I don't know the Freakonomics book, but I used to go to Sumo tournaments when I lived in Japan. The wrestlers are told not to throw bouts, but they also know that some day, they may need the other wrestler to return the favour. The judges are helpless to stop it. It's a bit like trying to force two GM's bent on drawing to play a real fighting game.
Yes, that is from Freakonomics - good book.
Reb, aboutyour comment about the 2400 player throwing the game to a 2100 player for a piece of the prize money. ..While this sounds like cheating, I think it's interesting to compare it to a poker tournament. It's very frequent for finalists i na tournament to "chop" the winnings right down the middle, no matter who has how many chips. For example, if there is a 10,000 dollar purse, and 1st gets 8,000 and 2nd gets 2,000, they very well might agree to split the prize and end the tournament right there. In fact, it's allowed in most poker rooms and has crept into online poker too. It's legal.
How is this different from what happened in your story? I think it's the same in some ways and different in others:
1. In the poker tournament, EVERYONE else's fate and payouts have already been decided. It's a decision made by the only two people who it can affect (the only two remaining players). In the chess example, the points/ratings might very well affect others' standings/payouts in the tournament.
2. In chess, a 2100 player can't rely on much luck to beat the 2400 player - it has to involve a lot of out-witting. In poker, there is a significant amount of luck in heads-up play and the weaker player has more of a shot than in chess. Thus, "throwing the game" in chess feels a lot more like cheating than a strong poker player splitting the purse with a moderate poker player.
3. Chess doesn't feel like gambling. Poker is a real game which requires real skill for consistent success, but it's still got the stigma of or at least classification of a gambling game. Chess has a very real sense of integrity to it and just "feels" worse when cheating is mentioned...at least, it does to me.
So, I don't think it's the same situation, but I could see how it could be argued that the 2400 player didn't do much wrong. Personally, I think it was cheating.
I don't know if that was important or interesting at all, but I had fun thinking about it :)
misterfever: I agree with your reason #1. For example, I might be a half-point ahead of the 2100 player for clear first in the under 2300 category. If his opponent throws the game, I will not be happy at all. I say it is clearly cheating.
To further your example though - let's say there are two top players who are tied going into the last round, a full point ahead of the crowd. They might agree to a quick draw (without explicitly stating to each other that they are doing this) but either way - I would not consider that cheating.
How about this then? You have three players from a very strong chess country who agree to draw all their games against each other, but fight like the dickens against strong players from other countries. Is that cheating?
Perhaps for important events, like the lead up to the world championship, they could get away from tournaments, and have a series of knock-out matches. That might cut down on this "collusion." 
Yes, and then they could call these knock-out matches "candidate" matches, and then you could refer to those who qualified as Candidates, with a capital 'C'.
What do you think? It's better than what we have now, right?
It's a revolutionary suggestion really. I'm not sure if the world is ready for it yet though.
You are talking about Smeltzer arent you? From the DCC? Yeah that is why they dropped his floor rating, because that is what all the chillun over at the DCC were doing, but then again a lot of those kids are killers though, ive been beat by a couple of them in tournament. There was this one, named Sylvia Yang, she killed me a few times. LoL, talk about a kick in the kanuts!!!
Greetings!
Was curious how many shady, unethical or unfair practices go about in Federation-rated tournaments to get one's (or a friend/relation etc.) rating to bump up? Note that this is not a post about cheating to win money, but some of the more "gray areas" where abuse still occurs under the watchful eyes of even the most keen Tournament Directors.
Here are a few that I've heard about.
The Floor Teddybear
Say a "good samaritan player" has a rating floor, say 1600. He is well beyond his prime and plays like a 1300-1400 by today's standards. Developing players, especially kids (and the parents who think each of them is clearly on the fast-track to GM-hood) love it when their spawn play the Floor Teddybear. With one great big warm hug and 20-30 moves of sheer anihillation later, you get a ratings boost much akin to eating the mushroom in Super Mario Brothers.
Even worse when aforementioned FTb is allowed to play 10 game matches with any contender (I'd like to meet the Tournament director who let things like this happen) and essentially gives his/her benefactor an insane ratings boost, especially when they started out with a huge difference in ratings.
The Born-Again Provisional Player
I've personally been a victim to this one. I remember playing a tournament in Houston in 2004 in th U1200 section with a player rated about 1163 (non-provisional rating, I looked him up online after the tournament was over) called K. (names omitted). 1 year later, I'm at a tournament in Waco playing the same guy (I never forget a face, especially since I lost to K after an agonizing endgame) but his name is now J.and he's about 1600 ... provisionally rated with just 6 games under his belt!!! So yeah ... I cried foul to the TD who said he'd investigate and I don't think anything did happen.
J/K obviously knew that when you're provisionally rated, your rating can jump up pretty quick so he thought up this not-so-novel way of merely re-entering his Federation under a new identity.
The Suddenly-Quad Maker
So once again, from experience ... I've seen a tournament where the TD decides ... on account of a small turn-out to change from Swiss to a Roundrobin Quad. Sure .... now you would think it would be fair to see everyone in groups of four playing 3/6 rounds. but sometimes ... the top 4 rated players get put in a Quad and then bottom "9" get put in a Swiss..cos you know, that's an "odd" number. :)
Even more strange when you clearly know that the TD has a vested interest in one of the top 4 players.
I just couldn't help thinking that gosh, that the "suspect" player in the Quad sure has a better chance to get more scalps in a RR Quad than in a Open Swiss. Or by the same token, his chances of dropping his rating to a weaker player decreases as well!
Do any of you have any other observations from OTB play? Remember, do not post about blatant cheating (using computers, getting help etc.) ... I'm more interested in these "gentle massaging" of the rules that seem to slip everyone's notice but you.