An idea for eliminating more draws

I agree. 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw. Similar to what is done in football.

False reasoning wicky... this has been debated and even tried with no change in the amount of draws. The logic is as follows. A player can not allow the opponent to win 3 points and gain a substantial advantage over the other players. A draw will be even more likely.

In sport as football, the idea works well, as the next day a team has reasonable expectations to win. Not so in chess. Awarding 3 points or even 2 points is not the solution. The present scoring has served well for 100's of years.

Chess games are won when by the other side makes enough mistakes (or 1 large one) and the player takes advantage of them. Professionals will not get reckless, change their style to win the game because 3 points will be awarded. They understand by taking unnecessary risks they become vulnerable to losing. The opponent gains 3 points. The next day a draw is the expected result. Thus the 3 point advantage is out of proportion.

Besides that ... a "solution" is not needed. A draw is part and parcel to the game. Essential to its integrety.

No! No! No! The 3-1-0 system does NOT work in chess. Here's an example.

A player (about sixth seed) has a long and difficult defence against the top seed in a tournament. He knows that if he draws, he will play the second seed the following round, and likely be in a similar situation. However, if he loses, then he will play someone less difficult. Using your 3-1-0 system, a player who loses the first game and wins the second (say against the 10th seed) gets more points than a player who struggles hard in both and saves two difficult endgames for two draws. That cannot be right. I quite like Kazimdzanov's proposal though. Seems like it could be quite fun for the viewer (and probably more challenging for the participants too).

When both players fight to win and a draw is the result, thats ok. But the pre-arranged short draws that used to happen more often were an insult to the spectators. Arbiters seem to have clamped down on that thankfully.

But I think I agree with your point that it would be more likely that black would play for a draw (if that's what you meant). And also I hadn't thought of Firethorns' comment about seeding.

Oh well - just a suggestion.

It wouldn't be 3-fold repetition now, would it?

More like 2000-fold repetition until the person that was behind in time loses due to a flag.

You're American.  Stop bastardizing football!

Football has a brown leather ball with points on each side with 4 downs to make 10 yards and get into the endzone to score 6 points.

In America, that stupid boring 90-minute game with no scoring and hand prohibition is called Soccer!

Have just read Kasimddzanovs open letter and it makes complete sense and solves the issue for me.

There's nothing wrong with draws. They are part of the game. Don't change the rules. Chess is perfect.

I have no issue with professionals in a round Robin event shaking hands and agreeing to an early draw. The tournament is for Them. It does not exist to please spectators. In the candidates do you think the participants were concerned about "pleasing" spectators? Absolutely not. The focus was on winning the event. If two players desire a draw, that is their right.

Maurice Ashley is 100 % wrong. To begin he is in it to make $ by taking huge entry fees from amature players. 2nd. His claims of taking chess to a whole other level by eventually having TV coverage is nonsense. He thinks the tournament exists for the spectators and social media.

I could not disagree more. An event is for the Players.

In addition to the brown leather ball, football has advertisments and guys standing around. Not much else really.

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406

I completely disagree with Kasimdzhanov letter.

Standard time control and blitz are two different games. One must be allowed to choose which format he prefers to play.

As he talks about tennis, it would be like a draw in tennis ended up being decided by a match of table tennis.

Also, there's a big difference between losing a game because you've been positionally outplayed for a couple of hours, and losing a game because you blunder a piece with 4 sec on the clock. Blitz results are mostly at random (between opponents of similar strenght) and that's why it's not even taken seriously like standard chess.

Yes, I've had a think about it and Kasimdzhanovs suggestion has a serious drawback to it. If a player is good at blitz, they could play in a very solid, boring way for the longer time controls, forcing the game into blitz where anything could happen.

That would mean less interesting games for us to look at / analyse.

Also, if the motivation is to make chess more popular; it isnt going to work. When people watch a tennis match they can see - the ball goes in or out. They have no clue what is going on in a chess match and therefore its not interesting for them.

So, I'm in the dont change anything camp as long as short or pre-arranged draws are outlawed.

Giri had many draws recently but they were mostly interesting games.

Draws are part of the game. I am pretty comnfident that Giri knew all of those draws would not get him a shot at the title.  So you know what?  He isnt challenging for the title.  Quit trying to change the game.

Yes he did.  I wasnt implying that he wasnt :-)