A viable alternative to the traditional 1 point? Idea stems from the notion that "a draw" is not fighting chess.
Did you hear about the Bilbao system, with 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw?
http://en.chessbase.com/post/some-thoughts-on-the-bilbao-scoring-system-in-london
NHL system--2 points for win, 1 for a draw, none for a loss.
Traditional scoring, football scoring, hockey scoring. They all work and all have limitations.
In general, I far prefer traditional scoring. Since the rating system is predicated on traditional scoring, there's a chance that other scoring systems may skew the ratings for those events.
But the real reason I'm opposed to the other rating systems is that they have extremely limited practical use. The draw rate was not significantly changed by the difference in scoring systems.
If you really want to reduce the number of draws in an elite event, invite one or two lower rated players. This will force everyone to play for wins against the lower rated players, and when the inevitable upset occurs, they will also have to be more aggressive against the other elite players.
This idea has worked in events such as the London Chess Classic, Wijk aan Zee, Norway and other events which save places for local talent.
3-1-0 is extremely easy to abuse. Consider the following scenario:
Player A, B, C, D, E are friends belonging to country U, and player F is an equally good player who belongs to country S. Players A, B, C, D, E fix matches such that each of them will beat the other players twice and be beaten twice.
After playing off against each other, the scores of players A to E will all be 6 points, now they all face off against player F. Let us say player F works really hard and secures draws 3 wins 1 and loses 1. Player F will end up with six points. The other players will have 9, 7, 7, 7 and 6 points. Thus player F will be tied for the last position with the person who has defeated!
How is that fair?
Any scoring system can be abused. You are correct that football and hockey scoring can be abused in the way you described, but traditional scoring has also seen abuse.
If the goal is to increase decisive results, the solution doesn't lie in the scoring system, but in the players invited to participate.
A viable alternative to the traditional 1 point? Idea stems from the notion that "a draw" is not fighting chess.
The result (decisive game or draw) itself doesn't indicate whether or not a game is "fighting chess." You can have two players, both of whom are playing for a win, play a long, hard fought game that ends in a draw because both played accurately. Or you could have a decisive game where one side completely crushes the other, because one of the two sides plays very badly.
A viable alternative to the traditional 1 point? Idea stems from the notion that "a draw" is not fighting chess.
Did you hear about the Bilbao system, with 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw?
http://en.chessbase.com/post/some-thoughts-on-the-bilbao-scoring-system-in-london
http://www.chess.com/survey/do-you-like-the-3-1-0-win-draw-loss-scoring-used-in-the-2010-bilbao-final-masters-event
This is like in soccer. At first, in soccer there was also 2 points for victory 1 and one for draw. But teams usually aimed for a draw that way. With the three points, the reward was bigger and teams wants to win.
I don't know how it will affect chess.
A viable alternative to the traditional 1 point? Idea stems from the notion that "a draw" is not fighting chess.