Chess without drawn games

I am not a chess expert by any means, I am more of a gamer than anything else, but out of all of the games I've ever played chess is definitely one of the best games ever made, there is no chance involved within chess, at all. The better player can usually win a set of games, but It is of my personal opinion Chess has one flaw, Draws, Draws by repetition, stalemate, or unwinnable positions, or even by agreement. I hate Draws, in a game that takes as long as chess, draws should be avoidable if possible. I have thought of a few ways to remove draws from the game. I'm calling it the Nodraw clause. I would love to see what higher level players think of this idea, perhaps my idea is foolish. Either way here it is:

Nodraw Clause:

If a game ends in any way other than Checkmate, or one player forfeiting, this clause will activate.

1.  The player who has the most Points will be declared the winner

2. Points will be determined by the value of the pieces on the board and are as follows, a pawn is equal to 1 point, a Bishop and a knight are equal to 3 points, a rook is equal to 5 points, a queen is equal to 9 points. Add up the total value of all pieces on the board and whoever has the most points will be declared the winner. (If my values are off on pieces then change them to whatever the correct value of each piece should be)

3. If the value of all the pieces left are equal, then the opponent with the most pieces wins. (Example: White has only a Queen left, Black has two Knights and a Bishop left and the game is ended by repetition, in this Scenario Black would win because the value of the pieces is equal but Black has more pieces)

4. If the number of pieces is the same, and the value of those pieces is the same then the winner is Black, because the player who played White had an objective advantage at the start but black managed to remove that advantage entirely and is therefore the better player.

5. There is no way for a match to end in a draw, players cannot agree to a draw. If a game is forced to end and cannot be continued due to some strange circumstance, then this Clause activates and a winner is determined (for instance if a match was forcibly ended by a meteor striking and killing both players, this clause would activate and determine a winner)

What do Chess players think of this? Would this give Black too much power? As I said I am no expert. I would like to hear any opinions on this.

I think we shall get rid of these mates also. I find them very annoying. But I am also not an expert. Maybe even make the game more equal by having both sides play white?

This is literally the worst idea I’ve ever heard. The wide drawing margins and difficult win conversions in chess are what make the game fun. Your proposal would destroy millenniums of endgame theory. If you want to cut down draws, it’d be better for you to propose something attacking opening theory, but I don’t even think we’re at that point yet. Look at Carsten’s performance in the Grenke chess classic and tell me draws are a problem. Players play less safely when they’re not in their element. Draws aren’t the problem, players’ attitudes are when they plays safe.
DESPITE HIGH LEVEL DRAWS, this has basically nothing to do with you because a player of your level will have vastly more decisive results than draws!!
Something I would support is adopting a 960 position for classical tiebreaks that changes every world championship cycle. It would give an extra element for players to prepare for to create their own opening theories and make new brilliancies with a dynamic new position. IMO, tiebreak orders in tourney’s are stupid. This 960 stays true to long time control chess but adds a level of complexity thinking on move one in which the superior player will surely prevail.

yes I agree 960 would help quite a bit, and the Idea of a 960 tiebreaker is an amazing Idea, but I fundamentally disagree that "wide drawing margins and difficult win conversions in chess are what make the game fun" Hear me out, Think of Chess as a spectator sport, like football, if every other football game ended in a draw I don't think people would watch it as much, Drawing a game isn't fun especially when it is obvious one player played better. Even Chess 960 will eventually get to the point where people are constantly drawing the game just like regular Chess, I don't think draws are a major issue or anything, but some part of me wishes they were just impossible, imagine how exciting it would be if every game was a blowout victory for one side. Imagine if high level players playing White knew that they had to come up with a winning strategy or else they would Lose. It would be different for sure. But maybe this would give Black too much power.

People who are not very good at chess think the game has flaws. No surprise there.

no need to be rude, I have studied chess to an extent and I have a decent understanding of opening theory, end games. Chess isn't my main thing, I play a variety of games, I don't think you have to be a genius to understand that a game that ends in draws constantly has something wrong with it. Also think of chess as a spectator sport too, why should I watch high level chess if half the games end in draws, it takes a game that most people already think is boring and makes it even more boring to watch at least to the average person. If you are so good at chess how about explaining why you don't like the idea of better players always winning? Seems like the kind of thing a loser would advocate for to me. Unless there is a good reason to have such a high draw rate, which should be explainable even to an amateur chess player like me.

I like this position, which occurred after my opponent made a critical error. Black to move.

You advocate ruining the importance of such positions.

Ok but that is adding chance into the game which is not what I'm advocating for, it'd be nice if someone came up with a real reason why drawing constantly in high level chess is a good thing, or why changing the win conditions to make draws impossible is harmful. That'd be nice to hear from someone.

 

See the post with the diagram above

I mean you are right, and I don't know how to fix such a thing I suppose it's really a question of what you value, do you want intense games with crazy attacks, or do you want a game where 3 hours go by and one guy who has clearly lost the game on a strategic level finally goes "hah! Technically I didn't lose! Wasn't that entertaining! I'm so glad we sat here for 3 hours!"

Well if the grandmasters can tell it is going to be a stalemate no matter what in the next 30 moves in advance then the player in the worse position should just resign, they don't have to play it out,  Question is would this turn a lot of drawn games into wins for black? Would that make black over powered? Perhaps it would, if that is the case than drawn games may be a necessary evil

Interesting points. Maybe draws are Necessary, maybe taking draws away would remove a special part of what makes chess, chess. IDK I just like winning when I deserve to, and losing when I deserve to as well, and I personally hate draws.

My guess is that in every single game you have drawn in your life, either you or you opponent was winning at one time and blundered it because neither of you are perfect. Chess isn't broke, players are. Until your play reaches the level of solved chess, then you can complain of chess always being a draw. The term missed win is more appropriate for your play

The end goal is to checkmate the other player. Putting in some arbitrary tiebreak rule would mean declaring somebody the winner even though he did not achieve that goal.

 

You guessed wrong. I've played hundreds of games where both players failed to gain any advantage.

 

You cannot fix what isn't broke.

Sometimes I like crazy attacks. Sometimes I like miracle draws. Sometimes I like games that end after a mere three hours. 

I don't like losing on time in dead drawn opposite colored bishop endings, but I'll take the wins in the same as compensation for occasionally losing such nonsense. Of course, if I played 3 1 instead of 3 0, these games would always be draws.

No In the rules I laid out if both players have the same pieces (both have only their king left, or both have a king and a bishop ECT) Black would automatically win because White started with an advantage and then lost it entirely which makes Black the better player.

Ok I agree with you that Checkmate should be the ultimate Goal BUT look at this: " In chess games played at the top level, a draw is the most common outcome of a game: of around 22,000 games published in The Week in Chess played between 1999 and 2002 by players with a FIDE Elo rating of 2500 or above, 55 percent were draws."   this is the problem I see for the future of Chess, Those statistics have likely only gotten worse since 2002 what happens when nearly every game ends in a draw? Something about Chess is going to have to change or no one will play it anymore. Maybe if you are in an inherently unwinnable position like a stalemate where you are surrounded by enemy pieces and have none yourself you should just lose. Why should someone who played worse get a draw,it seems un-competitive and boring to have a game go on that long and have a draw happen.

I am not sure I agree with your slippery slope argument.

It's not a slippery slope, Fact: at high levels of play 55% of all games end in draws This is a trend that has been increasing pretty much since record keeping began it is not therefore a slippery slope to assume it will likely keep increasing. Even if it doesn't, my point still stands that Currently games end in draws too much  can you think of any other competitive game/sport that has a 55% draw rate that people care about? Imagine if 55% of all baseball games ended in a draw, do you think millions of people would keep giving a crap about it? I doubt it. No. In the early days of baseball when pitchers could strike out nearly every batter you know what they did? They moved the mound back, they changed the rules so the game stayed interesting. Maybe changing win conditions isn't the solution for Chess, maybe switching to Chess960 is the solution. But either option is going to result in something being lost from the original classical game. I do think all of you have a point.