what if a tournament let you get liike 10 points if you beat magnus.
A Different Way to Score a Chess Tournament
Sort:
Personally, I think draws are an integral part of the game and shouldn't be punished per se.
I'm not sure if the extra points for a win are necessary in this system or not. My concern would be players just automatically taking a draw at the very get go for a guaranteed half point. To mitigate that you'd have to make the wins worth more.
I know I'm not the first person to think of having a higher score for wins. And I know there's plenty of draw situations that are truly damning if a player was to break the 3-fold repitition pattern. Some draws are just unavoidable. But it seems there are many draws where it's more positional than absolute. I think this scoring could lead to a lot of interesting and creative play. It could also lead to more robust tournament tactics.
What happened at the million $ tournament?
Yes, similar ideas have been debated, but I don't think it is a good idea to punish players for playing flawless chess and reward speculative chess. There are less radical ways to avoid short GM-draws, for example Sofia rules, tournaments with k.o. systems, Swiss tournments with weaker players etc ...
That's just it. I don't think the "playing on" aspect is punishing anyone because you get your half point as you would have anyway. It may be rewarding slightly more speculative chess if both players agree to play on, but both players need to agree to continue. That's the rub, if a player just wants their half point and be done with it, then that's the end of it. I also think you might find more "loose" or aggressive imbalances after a player guaranteed the half point - which is what spectators want. I think this could be good for the sport of chess.
The more I read about Sofia rules the less I like it. I really believe it's a player's right to call a draw whenever they wish. Forcing play is impure, and involving an arbitor to call your draw can also give hope to a person who thought it was a draw but finds out it is not. It's like backhanded kibitzing. And it also can lead to a lot of dull play while people play out their draws to the bitter end - thus wasting their mental energy.
Adding weaker players has shown to been very effective.
The key isn't the game with the weaker players, the key is that most people score a point from the weaker player but not all, and then the imbalance causes the strong players to play more aggressively with each other. To haggle the "easy" points that the relatively weak player gave out.
noahtee wrote:
That's just it. I don't think the "playing on" aspect is punishing anyone because you get your half point as you would have anyway. It may be rewarding slightly more speculative chess if both players agree to play on, but both players need to agree to continue. That's the rub, if a player just wants their half point and be done with it, then that's the end of it. I also think you might find more "loose" or aggressive imbalances after a player guaranteed the half point - which is what spectators want. I think this could be good for the sport of chess.
The more I read about Sofia rules the less I like it. I really believe it's a player's right to call a draw whenever they wish. Forcing play is impure, and involving an arbitor to call your draw can also give hope to a person who thought it was a draw but finds out it is not. It's like backhanded kibitzing. And it also can lead to a lot of dull play while people play out their draws to the bitter end - thus wasting their mental energy.
If the total number of points you can get in a game is 2, then, of course, those who go for the draw, as it is worth only one fourth of a win.
I don't know if this has been thought of before and I'm wondering what people would think about it. There's been a lot of shade thrown on draws lately, especially since the Million Dollar Chess debacle. Here it is:
If there is an agreed upon draw, both players are guaranteed .5 point each, but if both players agree to play on, the winner will get the extra .5 point.
I'd imagine a "natural" win (with no draws) would either get 1.5 or 2pts.
Thoughts?