3 points for a win, 1 for a draw

By the way, why is nobody advocating 3 points win, 2 points draw? That would favor solid players. We should not pick and choose between favoring aggressive players and solid players. A solid player is a good player! So the only reasonable course of action is to split the point in case of draw!

Why would making 2 draws worth more than a win make any sense in any game ever?

because that would encourage players to play for a win instead of playing tournament strategy. a win is always better than a draw 3x better in my book therefor 3-1-0 is a perfect system. we should salute players that dare to play chess.

I think Zigwurst referred to bangalore2's suggestion of 3 points win, 2 points draw - that makes 4 points for 2 draws which is better than one win. This system would actually encourage the players to draw

we need a new professional league and rule, 1 1/5 for a win, 1 draw and 1/5 for a los

I do not understand why not drawing is "daring to play chess" in amateur tourneys, the only quick draws are on the top boards in the last round. Why should we penalize them for making draws? If we do not want to draw, then so be it, we do not take draws. Furthermore, why should we reward players for losing? (In the 1W, 1L scenario being better than 2D? Draws are an integral part of the game! It is as simple as that. This could have unintended consequences, such as penalizing those who play the Four Knights Opening! My proposed system, above, would reward solid players, rather than the all-or-nothing players, and deserves the same level of consideration, no? This is why nearly every chess organization is content with the current system. It does not show favoritism to players of different styles.

I think the O.P's suggestion to revalue the points allocated for wins and draws would be a tremendous improvement at top level chess tournaments eg , the WCC.

Time and time again I read threads from people complaining , and with good reason , about how dull championships can be with so many agreed draws between the worlds best players.

No-ones saying that draws aren't an important part of chess and that the option to offer / agree to a draw needs to removed from the game. However if chess as a whole wants to sell itself to a wider audience and promote more media coverage , then having world title matches strewn with dull agreed draws and decided by player match points increasing by 0.5 increments is hardly an exciting prospect to persons who arent die hard chess players.

3 for a win and 1 for a draw will remove the lazy arsed tactical points accumilating enjoyed by those whom are supposed to be the best in the game.

If you want that trophy then play hard and all out for it..........

Nigel Short also suggested that stalemate should lose instead of drawing. I feel like agreeing with that, no more saving a dead loss with "fool bishop" endgame or K+P vs K. If one player managed to gain decisive matrial advantage why should the game end with a draw?

Because the guy with a decisive advantage was too stupid to win? Also KP+P is hardly desicive. Stalemate, like draws, are part of the game. Also, I have seen players sacrifice knights/bishops in order to reach fool bishop endgame. Why should they be penalized for their resourcfulness in simplifying the game?

Stalemate

No, someone who gets a draw from a losing position would deprive his opponent of 3 points and so improve his own chances against him in the competition.

The problem with agreed draws at a professional level is if you want it as a spectator sport you can't have weak ass draws agreed.  I think there was an example with Svidler in Norway, it doesn't make the sport look good.

I think players can too easily just agree to repeat moves as well, something could be done about that.  Maybe draws through repetition could be worth less than presently.

I don't think you understand how hard it is to win a game at the super-GM level.

Surely, it is unbelievably hard but the term "grandmaster's draw" was not coined without a reason: many times strong players go for quick draws because they want to have more rest and traditional scoring system helps them because the value of a draw is only half the value of a win.

"Grandmaster draws" aren't as common as they are thought to be.

And they obviously didn't become so strong by drawing every game because they wanted to leave. You guys are making it sound like they want to not play chess at all, just go home and relax and get paid for doing so.

I read about this recently - if I'm remembering correctly, all of the replays made the tournament last several days longer than it should? 

As to the idea behind the thread - I agree with an above poster on the merit of drawing from a lost position......some of the most creative chess ideas I've seen were 'mere' drawing techniques, and those should not go unrewarded. As to how one stops people from agreeing to draw just because they know each other or repeating positions that are roughly equal but uncomfortably sharp, I don't know.....you can't really have an honor system in chess because the tournament setting encourages you to slash and burn for rating points and prize purse. 

Sure it did. The point was really that draws have been frowned upon since the beginning of tournament play and ways to reduce them have been attempted ever since.  I'm not personally against draws.  Even GM draws might serve a purpose though possibly a less honorable one than simply playing to the point where no one is likley to win or where both parties are apprehensive about continuing.  Swindles are a very beguiling aspect of this game and often drawing from a seemingly lost position is more admirable than winning from a won position.  

I think my favorite result ever is a perpetual check......I don't remember the exact position, but it was something like this - every piece ready to mate my king with a single check for me to cling to for the draw. That draw felt like a purple heart......definitely more 'admirable' than my opponent mating me like a fish in a barrel. 

Also, I rarely see a football fan who complains of the catenaccio style. Most just label it another phase in the evolution of football. Grandmaster draws are of a similar vein. They are simply a strategy, when they do happen. I, for one, have only seen two grandmaster draws. Most draws are simply the result of two evenly matched players facing off.

What about taking a page from hockey? 3 points for a win; after a draw each player gets 1 point and they play armageddon for 1 point. So draw+win = 2 points, draw+loss = 1 point.