3 points for a win, 1 for a draw

I did give it a chance. I thought about it and gave my thoughts.

Tbh, that doesn't really matter.

It just doesn't seem right. It could work, but why is the current system bad?

Consider this system then, it is tweaked to greater precision.

Win: 15 points

Draw: 7 points

Loss: 2 points

I am convinced if someone sponsored the tournament with a high enough prize money people would play regardless of the system.

I think prize money would promote 3-1-0 system.

and Zigwurst in the current system a agred draws beforehand is half a win is that fair to the other contesters?

nope , still rubbish.

your idea is no better than the current system , eg 2 draws gives roughly the same points as 1 win , but then you go further by  awarding bonus points for losing , which is daft on every level........

What about this one:
100 points for a win

42 for a draw

9 points for loss

what about limiting the discussing to a point system that can actually be played instead of coming up with a billion new point system that would never be played.

3-1-0.

it is clearly noted that there is some who doesn't like the idea. however I agree with the OP that it would be a great idea for a OTB tournament.

I would like to see people figthing for points.

Today, I just had to play this wonderful endgame. The game begins when I offer a draw (I am White), but it was already after a very long endgame that was drawish all way long but which I tried to win nonetheless because our team needed a win on my board :

Considering his previous play, the guy knew fully well it was a draw all way long. Don't get me started on "fighting spirit".

The problem is not draws by themselves. Draws come in all shapes and sizes: in some both sides have winning chances and one side ends up salvaging the game with a repeated check when his opponent is about to mate him; in some, one side holds an enduring advantage for most of the game and his opponent just barely clings on in a long endgame; and in some, nothing much happens at all, a draw is agreed long before the endgame, and you almost wonder if the players had covertly agreed to play out a sterile draw before the first pawn was moved.

It is only the last of these kinds of draw that is truly cancerous for chess, and hence I think the best way to solve the problem is not by changing the scoring system but to prohibit draws by agreement before the first time control. Obviously there would be exceptions: if a player is a rook down but has an available perpetual check pattern or stalemate defence he should not be forced to play it out, but for these situations an arbiter can be used if both players agree to it.

What about (+1)-(0)-(-1) system. To punish losses and award wins. :)

didn't black make a mistake on move 10. I think Rf4 looks quite strong

10...Rf4 11.Re6 is still as drawish as you can get. But now that you tell it, I probably mixed up the moves somewhere, not that it matter to the general point though.

I agree. The current system is why chess can never move to mainstream television like poker. Too many draws are not good.

3 points for a win will bring more interest in chess. More people will play for a win (in the last round) especially when a draw will not get them any prize.

Who cares what computers think?