Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Chess Tournaments: How to discourage White Draws and incentivise Black Wins

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #1

    openings

    (1)
    player should get more points for win with BLack, than win with white.

    or

    (2) in case of draw, more points for draw with Black, than for white.

    or
    (3)
    both (1) and (2)

    For ex:
    in case (1)
    No points for loss 
    1 point for draw with black, 1 point for draw with white.
    3 point for win with black, 2 point for win with white.

    or

    in case (2)
    No points for loss 
    2 point for draw with black, 1 point for draw with white.
    3 point for win with black, 3 point for win with white.

    or 

    in case (3)
    No points for loss 
    2 point for draw with black, 1 point for draw with white.
    3 point for win with black, 2 point for win with white.

    or

    case(4)

    No points for loss

    1 point for draw (for both)

    3 points for win ( for both players)

     

    or

    case (5)

     

    Existing point format

     

    No points for loss

    0.5 points for draw

    1 point for win


    I have written to FIDE President to consider options 1,2,3,4 on a test basis , for select tournaments before introducing to all GM Tournaments. The results of the test may or may not have more wins than draws.

    What is your view? What option do you think should be chosen as replacement for option 5.

    Current GM tournaments witness a string of drawn games, before delivering wins at later stages. Do you think the wins should be encouraged towards the early stages of the tournaments than later.
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #2

    openings

    Kintoki wrote:

    Meh, I think the system is fine as it is.

    More importantly, do you think adopting either of options 1 to 4 results in no significant improvement in percentage of won games than in option 5??? or is perfect chess a drawn game for all moves of white?
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #3

    AnthonyCG

    Then GMs would play obviously drawn lines to force their opponents into inferior positions. And a lot of players would straight out quit.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #4

    openings

    Kintoki wrote:

    I'm sure more people would play some more agressive openings if they were in a desperate need for points to catch up with someone( as black ) .

    But I really don't like the idea of giving a penalty for white for getting a draw. Or having it as a reward for black. 

    Do you also disgree with option (4) ?it makes draws less attractive for both players equally ? Dont you think WHITE has an incentive to begin with . Therefore the defending champion playing repeated draws to hold onto his marathon title defence (with a tie at end of say 14 games) is not innovating enough or may 'fix drawn games' (Rare case) After 14 games, how many more games should be played to determine the new world champion?
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #5

    AnthonyCG

    openings wrote:
    Kintoki wrote:

    I'm sure more people would play some more agressive openings if they were in a desperate need for points to catch up with someone( as black ) .

    But I really don't like the idea of giving a penalty for white for getting a draw. Or having it as a reward for black. 

     

    Do you also disgree with option (4) ?it makes draws less attractive for both players equally ? Dont you think WHITE has an incentive to begin with . Therefore the defending champion playing repeated draws to hold onto his marathon title defence (with a tie at end of say 14 games) is not innovating enough or may 'fix drawn games' (Rare case) After 14 games, how many more games should be played to determine the new world champion?

    Draws are only unattractive to spectators. At the GM level most guys are going to play it safe and only take risks when necessary. I'm sure everyone would like to see a lot of king's gambits and such but at their level there is more risk in playing that way. Why take unnecessary risk?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #6

    openings

    AnthonyCG wrote:

    Then GMs would play obviously drawn lines to force their opponents into inferior positions. And a lot of players would straight out quit.

    Lets say, GM A and B play best of 3 games. Also, one of the players say A is the current world champion. Would you like to se Match 1 Draw Match 2 Draw Match 3 Draw Hence Win for GM A. Next year same story repeats. All the Current World Champion has to do in the meantime is to learn from the chess program (Which has stronger Elo rating) Also, the current world champion has the added advantage of winning either by draws or by wins. However he risks more if he tries to win, he settles for drawn positions or if he can collude with betting syndicates to draw rather than win (in a winnning position). Perfect chess stagnates. Status quoists win.
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #7

    NM Reb

    Noone minds legitimate hard fought draws. The problem is when neither player even makes an attempt to win, they play 20 moves of theory and then agree a draw. There are ways to discourage this without changing the basic scoring system for the game. One way is to simply NOT invite the worst offenders. Another way is to use a tie break system that rewards decisive play as opposed to "safe" play. Lets say you have a tie for first ( between 2 players ) , first I would let their head to head game decide if they played one another, if that was a draw then the win goes to the player that won the most games, still tied then the player who won the most games with black. Still tied ? Then use some of the traditional tie breaks currently used. Using this system becomes more complicated though when more than 2 are tied for a position/prize......

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #8

    openings

    Reb wrote:

    Noone minds legitimate hard fought draws. The problem is when neither player even makes an attempt to win, they play 20 moves of theory and then agree a draw. There are ways to discourage this without changing the basic scoring system for the game. One way is to simply NOT invite the worst offenders. Another way is to use a tie break system that rewards decisive play as opposed to "safe" play. Lets say you have a tie for first ( between 2 players ) , first I would let their head to head game decide if they played one another, if that was a draw then the win goes to the player that won the most games, still tied then the player who won the most games with black. Still tied ? Then use some of the traditional tie breaks currently used. Using this system becomes more complicated though when more than 2 are tied for a position/prize......

    Exactly my thoughts. (As an example of the complexity of conducting such tournamentws with 'fair tie breaks' Lets say, In a certain tournament bracket, a player must be defeated two times to be eliminated. If 512 contestants enter the tournament, what is the greatest number of games that could be played to decide the single winner? There could be a 3-way tie.
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #9

    sapientdust

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #10

    NM Reb

    I oppose changing the basic scoring system in chess... its not soccer and a draw is not only a legitimate result but even a likely result at the upper levels between equally matched opponents. Again , its not the hard fought legitimate draws that create a problem so much as the draws in which neither player even makes an attempt to win...

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #11

    DruidChess

    Reb wrote:

    I oppose changing the basic scoring system in chess... its not soccer and a draw is not only a legitimate result but even a likely result at the u Anand may overtake Kasparov as the longest undisputed, if he is allowed to retain title just by drawing games. The spectators loose out on innovations from Anand's pper levels between camp and comp.equally matched opponents. Again , its not the hard fought legitimate draws that create a problem so much as the draws in which neither player even makes an attempt to win...

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #12

    DruidChess

    In Reply to[:I oppose changing the basic scoring system in chess... its not soccer and a draw is not only a legitimate result but even a likely result at the upper levels between equally matched opponents. Again , its not the hard fought legitimate draws that create a problem so much as the draws in which neither player even makes an attempt to win...] Anand may overtake Kasparov as the longest undisputed, if he is allowed to retain title just by drawing games. The spectators loose out on innovations from Anand's camp and comp. Also, in the history of the game how would you compare two players from different era, if not for years at the top??
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #13

    NM Reb

    DruidChess wrote:
    In Reply to[:I oppose changing the basic scoring system in chess... its not soccer and a draw is not only a legitimate result but even a likely result at the upper levels between equally matched opponents. Again , its not the hard fought legitimate draws that create a problem so much as the draws in which neither player even makes an attempt to win...] Anand may overtake Kasparov as the longest undisputed, if he is allowed to retain title just by drawing games. The spectators loose out on innovations from Anand's camp and comp. Also, in the history of the game how would you compare two players from different era, if not for years at the top??

    Kasparov could also have done this, retain the title just by drawing all games and so could Karpov. The champion has enjoyed "draw odds " for many years so why should Anand be denied this as well ? In the days of Botvinnik the champion had an even greater advantage : should he lose he was automatically granted a rematch within one year. As for comparing the great players from different eras there seems to be no general consensus on the most reliable way to do this..... I dont think relying on how long they were at the top is completely reliable either. Euwe was world champion longer than both Smyslov and Tal yet I doubt many see Euwe as stronger than either of them.  

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #14

    DruidChess

    Reb wrote:
    DruidChess wrote:
    In Reply to[:I oppose changing the basic scoring system in chess... its not soccer and a draw is not only a legitimate result but even a likely result at the upper levels between equally matched opponents. Again , its not the hard fought legitimate draws that create a problem so much as the draws in which neither player even makes an attempt to win...] Anand may overtake Kasparov as the longest undisputed, if he is allowed to retain title just by drawing games. The spectators loose out on innovations from Anand's camp and comp. Also, in the history of the game how would you compare two players from different era, if not for years at the top??

    Kasparov could also have done this, retain the title just by drawing all games and so could Karpov. The champion has enjoyed "draw odds " for many years so why should Anand be denied this as well ? In the days of Botvinnik the champion had an even greater advantage : should he lose he was automatically granted a rematch within one year. As for comparing the great players from different eras there seems to be no general consensus on the most reliable way to do this..... I dont think relying on how long they were at the top is completely reliable either. Euwe was world champion longer than both Smyslov and Tal yet I doubt many see Euwe as stronger than either of them.  

    Should earlier greats be penalized because chess theory was not as advanced as current anlysis/ table bases.
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #15

    Dragec

    Banning certain openings might do the trick. :-)
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #16

    DruidChess

    Dragec wrote:
    Banning certain openings might do the trick. :-)

    Which ones? What If all openings lead to draws? Lol. Would that be an anti climax or is it acceptable to you that perfect chess is a drawn game.
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #17

    openings

    Reb wrote:
    DruidChess wrote:
    In Reply to[:I oppose changing the basic scoring system in chess... its not soccer and a draw is not only a legitimate result but even a likely result at the upper levels between equally matched opponents. Again , its not the hard fought legitimate draws that create a problem so much as the draws in which neither player even makes an attempt to win...] Anand may overtake Kasparov as the longest undisputed, if he is allowed to retain title just by drawing games. The spectators loose out on innovations from Anand's camp and comp. Also, in the history of the game how would you compare two players from different era, if not for years at the top??

    Kasparov could also have done this, retain the title just by drawing all games and so could Karpov. The champion has enjoyed "draw odds " for many years so why should Anand be denied this as well ? In the days of Botvinnik the champion had an even greater advantage : should he lose he was automatically granted a rematch within one year. As for comparing the great players from different eras there seems to be no general consensus on the most reliable way to do this..... I dont think relying on how long they were at the top is completely reliable either. Euwe was world champion longer than both Smyslov and Tal yet I doubt many see Euwe as stronger than either of them.  

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule#Karpov_vs._Kasparov http://blog.chess.com/kurtgodden/the-longest-possible-chess-game http://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-ratings---how-they-work Why should Anand be given an unfair advantage? Maybe the new player is a super intelligent being who never played chess before being asked to challenge Anand in a game of chess? Why shouldn't the rule be if Match drawn -- more than half a point to newbie with black and less than half a point to Anand with white. OR Abolish 50 move rule and allow games to be played indefinetely. This way, more winning lines maybe seen in tournament play than in computer chess. Why rob the human spectators of wtnessing decisive matches. In fact, draw is just an abstract concept why not declare the match score null and void. Only wins gets you points. Neither losses nor drawn matches count. IS this possible in GM Chess?>
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #18

    NM OmarCayenne

    Kintoki wrote:

    Meh, I think the system is fine as it is.

    Same here.  (Why do people with these Great New Ideas always talk like they're the first ones to ever think this stuff up?  Beats the heck outta me.)

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #19

    openings

    tonydal wrote:
    Kintoki wrote:

    Meh, I think the system is fine as it is.

    Same here.  (Why do people with these Great New Ideas always talk like they're the first ones to ever think this stuff up?  Beats the heck outta me.)

    : To status quoists, You dont have an answer to Who is the best chess player ever, All you can say in reply is the current human world champion. Without taking the argument persoanlly, would you like to watch a 3 hour soccer game with results, a chess game with win for by draws fpo last years' winner and or to the longest running repeated opera BTW, can you dispute the fact that Brazil has won more World championships than say England? What incentive is there to follow and learn this game if you know it is a draw all the way if you can remember perfectly from a earlier repeated game/position.Why does FIDE president want to conduct an online FIDE-certified Facebook tournament? Obviously he wants to reach more people, is the current scoring system, help to reach more people, or a newscoring will make the game more attractive??? Why shouldI pay to watch a drawn game, played imperfectly, leading to loss
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #20

    NM OmarCayenne

    Yeah, who would ever be interested in chess the way it is? (beats the heck outta me)...

Back to Top

Post your reply:

Log In
Join
Post New Forum Topic
^ Ads keep Chess.com free. Upgrade to remove ads! ^
^ Ads keep Chess.com free. Upgrade to remove ads! ^