Unsporting or Cheating?

'd certainly hate to be the guy who had to throw his game first.

Only playing a couple of moves in both games is blatant cheating IMO.

It all seems to depend on whether the tournament conditions stated that Article 9.1a of the FIDE rules would apply:

Article 9: The drawn game

Exactly mark100net - if everyone in the tournament behaved like that the whole tournament would be ruined - so how can it be okay for a subset of people to engage in an activity that clearly can't be done by everyone in the tournament?  How do you decide who's allowed to do it and who isn't since obviously not everyone can do it without running the whole tournament into the ground?   Isn't that an 'unfair advantage'? 

I'm still confused about who exactly the victims are here and what the damages are.  There's still only one tournament winner, eventually one of the two players, possibly both, will be eliminated.

In a round robin event, where each side plays the same person once as white and once as black (as an example), for the two games total, there will be a minimum of 2 points to be won between them up to a maximum of 6 points.  It is in their mutual best interest to make sure 6 six points gets allocated and to act accordingly (if they are able to collude).

These knockout tourneys involve mini two game matches and often result in a drawn result enabling both players to proceed to the next round, exactly the same as the player who won 2-0 or 1.5-0.5.

Here's a question, what happens if the final match is drawn?  Is it then decided on tie-break, or do they play another round?  I played in a final match where my opponent had a much better tie-break, even after I won the final 2-0.  So these knock-out tourneys are a bit of a lottery at best.

If collusion of this sort is neither unsportsmanlike nor cheating, then why does FIDE have a clear injunction against it (as Bubatz indicates earlier in this thread)?  The reason is that in many tounament conditions, collusion can give an unfair advantage by providing the people doing it with a convenient rest period while their upcoming opponents are busy depleting their energies in hard-fought games. During those rest periods, people who are colluding have the luxury of recouping their energies, or simply preparing more for their upcoming opponents -- both of which would naturally constitute unfair advantages in upcoming games. The fact that many GM's get away with this practice does not magically make it fair or ethical, especially since ethical considerations don't (or at least shouldn't) revolve around a player's rating or titles.   True, you can't win a tournament by having only draws.  But having periods for relaxation and preparation before crucial contests sure does help.  Bottom line:  It's cheating because it can easily confer an unfair advantage on the people doing it (vis-a-vis their opponents)... and it's unsportsmanlike because, well, cheating isn't sportsmanlike.           

Ok, I understand they agree the draw and both move fort. But I don't really understand what is going on with the OP. I mean he seams like he didn't get an oponent so is he going to get the point and move to the next round whithout playing?

Report them both as cheaters. This behaviour is obviously wrong.

Have a closer look. I am seeing four players.

In this tournament, one definitely does not need to ask an arbiter's permission before agreeing to a draw. There are no Sofia rules in place here.

Knockout tournaments that allow both players to advance in case of a tie are rare. For a reason. And still they seem to be working well enough just like that here on this site.

Do not blame the players. They are speeding up the tournament, effectively doing something which is requested so often in other places. Note that this is a round with 9 players left in a knockout tournament, so there is more than 3 rounds to go anyway, while it is completely sufficient to just eliminate one player or two on this round.

This is a valid point for OTB tournaments, but does it translate to corresondence games here?

So agreeing draw on the second move is cheating, but agreeing draw on 16 moves, as the players on group 4 did, is not?

this most certanly is kinda confusing.

So far as this round concerns, there is one player who gets the Bye point so he moves to the next round, 4 other players agree draw so they move, there is 2 more games in progress, maybe they agree to draw laters, and if they do, then only 1 player get eliminated on the whole round.

the other 2 players beter don't  agree to draw or poor Joseph may feel forever alone.

LOL.

That's not what the FIDE rule states. It says that a FIDE-sanctioned tournament has the option of using such a rule. FIDE does not forbid draws-by-agreement, nor does it call such draws cheating.

If there are rules against agreed draws they should be announced and put in place before the match, not created and enforced ex post facto

There are lots of reasons to offer a draw. You just want to get the game over with. You are tired and want some rest. You have secured your place in the tournament and want to be finished with it, or it secures your moving on to the next round. Whatever the reason, a player should have the right to offer a draw, and the opponent has the right to accept or refuse.

I looked at the crosstables. Perhaps the solution here is to take into consideration ratings when awarding tie break points. The lower rated player should be awarded more points for the draw. Then he would advance, thus making it unappealing for the higher rated player to collude to draws.

Interesting is who is complaining, he is getting a bye for the round and will advance. As he said, "The person with the middle ranking gets the bye according to chess.com's rule." So if "according to chess.com's rules" in the event of a drawn match both players advance, I suggest he accept the rules.

I like this idea.

This is an awful idea.  The lower-ranked player can simply play a drawish opening and in doing effectively give himself a plus score.