Former FIDE Champion Rustam Kasimdzhanov proposed to FIDE that they should abolish draws, with full details here http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7469

I don't agree with this at all, but I wondered what all of you think about this.

I respect all these masters and great people.  I personally want to keep the game rules the way they are because I want to give the game to all my decendents.  I love how beautiful what some of the moves needed to subtly checkmate, draw, stalemate, lose, etcetera.  And besides, I want to master this game before I pass away!!hehe  In any case, if the rules are changed, that is fine.  I will just end up staying home and playing Chessmater 10th Edition:  USCC - San Diego (2004) for the PC all by myself.  I know some times things have to change.  However, I guess I respect my elders.  Not that changing the rules mean anything less.  I just like to keep what is working [do not fix it lesson]!!hehe  I hope my point of view is seen as just that.  It is only 1 small person's input.  Sorry for any offense as I do not intend any.  Thank you and with respect for the former FIDE Champion Rustam Kasimdzhanov for allowing me to post this hopefully!!

Monster_with_no_Name will be in his elements with this topic

I don't like the idea of if the game doesn't have a decisive result than rapid followed by blitz tie breaks will occur. Do we really want the super tournaments to be decided by blitz games?

I love this idea.  you still get all the beauty of chess but pgn files of "one game" might include 5 games!  i think his solution is a bit unrealistic though, he was on the right track with the comparison to tennis. in most tourny's the max time is 6hours (40 moves in 2 hours per player then 1 one hour per player=max of 6 is pretty standard.)  instead of having one game with a 6-hour time limit have have a "best of three" G/6 (all three games in one time control!!(not per each game..) this will make people seiously re-think there time use strategies!). you sit down and get white, and you win but if you use 4 hours to do and black only used 1 to lose you might be in trouble in the next game! thats just another idea to think about because his was simplistic.

this is just ridiculous. the elite draw against each other because they are equally matched and neither side can win, so making them play blitz is useless. Unless the time controls are inhumanely quick, both players should still draw each other. Not only this, but this makes masters prepare for two different time controls, overall reducing the quality of the game. And for less experienced players, this unfairly favors players who are skilled at blitz but only lucky enough to get a draw against an opponent who is better with standard time controls...

Although I do support the idea of weighing wins a little more than twice draws (perhaps 2 for win, 0.5 for draw and 0 for loss), making the draw nonexistent is completely absurd...

Like the London Chess Classic, which uses the 3 point system, 3 for win, 1 for draw, 0 for loss. Under that scoring, 3 draws would equal a win instead of 2.

The money-saving scheme of the candidates matches have broken down so now he needs a new way to keep the price of renting venues down.

Both schemes increased the importance of  blitz games over standard ones and decreased the amount of time tournaments would actually take.