user1105: Take the following scenario, which may happen in tournaments that's why I'm asking my question:
A famous old GM who's not playing well plays against some teenager who's very strong, The GM will be embarrassed to lose against some teenager, the GM has a lot of money, the teenager needs money for college. So the  GM pays the teenager so he could win.
Or maybe could they manipulate results by mutual agreement, like what happened to Algeria in the world cup 1982. Could they agree to eliminate an opponent? What the rules has to say?
I know it's against the rules, i just want to know how they investigate it and what are the rules about it, and yes i'm also asking about draws, since manipulating the results isn't only about winning and losing.
And I'm also interested in knowing if the officials can deny a draw, if they see that the game is still playable or if they see something suspicious about it. And could you draw at any stage of the game: like d3 e5 and they agree to draw here, is it possible?

user-1: I am not proud about it, but I am gonna confess once at last round of a 3rd category regional tournament I was virtually classified with a draw for playing in 2nd category and my opponent also classified, needing both the 1/2 point, and we agree a draw before the game.
We were from the same club and another player I met on University ask me directly to do it because my opponent had hardly being trying to classify for 2nd league for three years.
In my defense I will say I felt stronger than my opponent and the player who suggested it was a 2200 that had introduced me in the club I didn't want to contradict.
We didn't prepare anything special. Just we played both a closed non attacking opening and at move 30 or so a draw was offered and accepted.
I know an arbiter on my region once gave two zeros for a premature draw, but truly it is difficult to fight against this because you can deeply prepare a draw agreement without being suspicious. 

user20721: Yes.
But most players are much smarter with how they do it by using  other ways than you suggest.  
Two GMs could agree to play a tame opening that is known to be  drawish then settle for a draw after 20 moves or whatever the current rule limit is.  
Personally I think they should have to play at least 40 moves if not the whole game until a  draw is the only legal outcome due to lack of material or stalemate. 

user4418: The most brazen example of this occurred in a tournament in 1975 in Luton, England when Tony Miles (Britain's first native born over the board IGM) and Stewart Reuben (now a respectable member of the FIDE rules commission) agreed a draw without playing any moves. Miles needed a draw to win the competition and for Reuben a draw against a much stronger player guaranteed him a high place in the tournament.
It ended badly, however, when the arbiter decided to award both players 0.
According to Wikipedia the relevant rule used was:

a player may only offer a draw at the moment he has made a move and
  must then start the other player's clock

Today this wouldn't quite work. The relevant rule section is:

An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5
  must be considered.

But this situation would be covered by the general:

11.1  The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.


user657: In a nutshell, current rules allow pretty much any sort of "spontaneous" agreement to a draw at the board, even if one side is staring at a forced mate in 6. If money changes hands or the results were agreed to before sitting down to play, it's a violation of the rules, but it's hard to enforce because folks who do that do it without witnesses to the act.
The "Sofia Rules" are an attempt to combat that, we'll see how long they last and whether they get applied to more than a few top tournaments.
If an official has evidence, he can declare a game forfeit, but that is subject to appeals where the evidence must be presented. If an official becomes known for doing it capriciously, no one comes to play; if a player gets the reputation for "selling points" he is often invited to play in tournaments where the goal is to get one or more players some title norms. So you can see the field is tilted in favor of the players. Not saying that's good or bad, just saying it is.

1105: <p>Take the following scenario, which may happen in tournaments that's why I'm asking my question:</p>

<p>A famous old GM who's not playing well plays against some teenager who's very strong, The GM will be embarrassed to lose against some teenager, the GM has a lot of money, the teenager needs money for college. So the  GM pays the teenager so he could win.</p>

<p>Or maybe could they manipulate results by mutual agreement, like what happened to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/jun/13/1982-world-cup-algeria" rel="noreferrer">Algeria in the world cup 1982</a>. Could they agree to eliminate an opponent? What the rules has to say?</p>

<p>I know it's against the rules, i just want to know how they investigate it and what are the rules about it, and yes i'm also asking about draws, since manipulating the results isn't only about winning and losing.</p>

<p>And I'm also interested in knowing if the officials can deny a draw, if they see that the game is still playable or if they see something suspicious about it. And could you draw at any stage of the game: like <code>d3</code> <code>e5</code> and they agree to draw here, is it possible?</p>
 -1: <p>I am not proud about it, but I am gonna confess once at last round of a 3rd category regional tournament I was virtually classified with a draw for playing in 2nd category and my opponent also classified, needing both the 1/2 point, and we agree a draw before the game.</p>

<p>We were from the same club and another player I met on University ask me directly to do it because my opponent had hardly being trying to classify for 2nd league for three years.</p>

<p>In my defense I will say I felt stronger than my opponent and the player who suggested it was a 2200 that had introduced me in the club I didn't want to contradict.</p>

<p>We didn't prepare anything special. Just we played both a closed non attacking opening and at move 30 or so a draw was offered and accepted.</p>

<p>I know an arbiter on my region once gave two zeros for a premature draw, but truly it is difficult to fight against this because you can deeply prepare a draw agreement without being suspicious. </p>
 20721: <p>Yes.<br>
But most players are much smarter with how they do it by using  other ways than you suggest.  </p>

<p>Two GMs could agree to play a tame opening that is known to be  drawish then settle for a draw after 20 moves or whatever the current rule limit is.  </p>

<p>Personally I think they should have to play at least 40 moves if not the whole game until a  draw is the only legal outcome due to lack of material or stalemate. </p>
 4418: <p>The most brazen example of this occurred in a tournament in 1975 in Luton, England when Tony Miles (Britain's first native born over the board IGM) and Stewart Reuben (now a respectable member of the FIDE rules commission) agreed a draw without playing any moves. Miles needed a draw to win the competition and for Reuben a draw against a much stronger player guaranteed him a high place in the tournament.</p>

<p>It ended badly, however, when the arbiter decided to award both players 0.</p>

<p>According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_in_chess" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> the relevant rule used was:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>a player may only offer a draw at the moment he has made a move and
  must then start the other player's clock</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Today this wouldn't quite work. The relevant rule section is:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5
  must be considered.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But this situation would be covered by the general:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>11.1  The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.</p>
</blockquote>
 657: <p>In a nutshell, current rules allow pretty much any sort of "spontaneous" agreement to a draw at the board, even if one side is staring at a forced mate in 6. If money changes hands or the results were agreed to before sitting down to play, it's a violation of the rules, but it's hard to enforce because folks who do that do it without witnesses to the act.</p>

<p>The "Sofia Rules" are an attempt to combat that, we'll see how long they last and whether they get applied to more than a few top tournaments.</p>

<p>If an official has evidence, he can declare a game forfeit, but that is subject to appeals where the evidence must be presented. If an official becomes known for doing it capriciously, no one comes to play; if a player gets the reputation for "selling points" he is often invited to play in tournaments where the goal is to get one or more players some title norms. So you can see the field is tilted in favor of the players. Not saying that's good or bad, just saying it is.</p>
