3 point 1 point system

i think the 2 for a win and 1 for a draw in place in the present system is not good enuff.

it causes too many people to play conservatively and search for draws

it also causes collusion between two players to get a third player disqualified

the 3/1 system is better

like in soccer it makes for a more aggressive competitive game.

players go for the win and try to avoid draws

let's change the system to one that makes more sense.

This is only a half solution to the problem. Better implement a draw-free chess variant as an alternative, e.g. something like dipole chess.

It could be an interesting experiment. I'd like too see how the chess players would accept and enjoy such a variant.

I am a chess player so I enjoy all variants :))

the 3/1/0 point solution was introduced like 10 years ago in Europe in soccer, also hoping to make draws/ties less attractive for the teams. Everybody agreed that this would be a big step forward and would make the sport much more interesting and the fights tougher.

Reality is, an analysis of the results of those years shows that no relevant tournament or league would have had the slightest difference in result in who won, who was second etc. The number of goals is not gone up, the percentage of ties is not gone down. Basically, it had no significant effect.

I doubt that it would be very different in Chess.

If you look through the corresponding web sites, a lot of people have spent a lot of time trying to find solutions to the 'draw problem', and none of them worked very well. I don't really believe anyone here can do better...

another thing: dipole chess (or other variants) does not solve the draw issue. It is just a different game, and although it might be great and interesting (I'd love to try), Chess still has the draw issue. Just dipole chess does not have it.

an alternative would be that some draws should be called wins

for instance, if a player has a small piece left (bishop or knight) and the other player has none then its a win for the player with the piece where it would otherwise be called unwinnable.

same with a player with a pawn left and so on.

in other words those games that would be drawn because unwinnable should be called wins for the player with the pieces left on the board...

@ciucciu - totally disagree; that would be a chess variant but no longer chess; such a change would totally chance endgame strategy (and tatics), and by consequence middlegame and even openings. Ergo, a whole new game.

'Where never is heard, a discouraging, word ...'

Aganju said:

"if you look through the corresponding web sites, a lot of people have spent a lot of time trying to find solutions to the 'draw problem', and none of them worked very well. I don't really believe anyone here can do better... "

Hey, at least let the folks TRY! It's something to talk about ... .

I'm a tournament Chess player and to me, draws are an important part of the game (historically), and well played games that end in draws are perfectly satisfying. Thus, I don't consider draws a 'problem'.

But I agree that cheating is a problem, collusion is a problem, pre-arranged draws is a problem, and even 'grandmaster draws' are a problem; just not draws, per se.

Good luck solving the aforementioned problems.

(meow)

For the length of tournaments we have here, I think using most wins as a tie-breaker (even before SON) would amply reward enterprising play. For very long tournaments, I've always thought that counting a draw as only 1/3 of a point goes too far in rewarding a player who loses some and wins others. But a draw value of 3/8 yields tournament results that seem fair to me.