Chess without drawn games

I feel like your idea is good but your reasoning isn't, not to be rude. You put up a good argument, but draws help chess by teaching them to look at their moves and mistakes. I would keep draws, but your ideas are decent, too.

King versus King bishop.

Literally no way to checkmate or stalemate. Both sides know, neither can win. The game has been one of attacking, yet it came down to this. What do you propose? They play until timeout? What if the side with a king is faster? Then does he win and impossible game? WHAT ABOUT KING VERSUS KING?! Playing until time out means 400 move games as masters have increment and only lose when they drop dead. Draws are the way to end unwindable games, or to give weaker players chances against better ones. By getting rid of draws people won't be more aggressive! They know they either win or loss and play slowly, not fighting their opponent so that their opponent miss steps. Their opponent does the same. Cue a 500 move game of maneuvering. Is that what you want chess to be? Plus your, white has an advantage, That is stupid as white's advantage is negligible and most opening lines negate that anyways. Under your ideas anyone could just trade every chance they get as black and win due to your dumb King versus king principle. White would have to no trade, not give chances to trade, and virtually stay on the first, second, and third rank in order for black not to just trade everything and win.

If you had read the rules I laid out you would know that in a position with insufficient material for checkmate the game would end and the player with more material would be declared the winner

If you had read my post, which is quoted here, you would know that you are attempting to ruin something that works.

This is the first time I saw this.  The author of the Original Post is a complete and utter moron, and one that just likes to whine, and clearly a beginner when he is using an artificial point system as the basis for determining the winner.  TOTAL HORSEBLEEP!

Anybody with even a lick of skill in chess knows that those numbers mean nothing beyond the extremely elementary level.  Their value assumes nothing else is on the board.  Well, for starters, there must be 2 Kings on the board.

There are MANY positions where a Queen is better than 2 Rooks, or a Knight is better than a Rook, or one pawn is better than 3 pawns, but it is not quite enough to win.  The player with the extra material is barely holding on by a thread, and now you are going to tell me that he wins because I made a sound sacrifice?

Every person that has ever posted these whining posts about how Stalemate should be a win, or Draws should be illegal, or any other such BS needs to just GO AWAY!  Clearly you need take up a game where Draws are not possible, like Backgammon.  If all you are going to do here is whine about the rules, GET LOST!

People fail to realize that getting rid of draws actually ENCOURAGES boring games more than actually letting them be.

Chess is a draw with optimum  play by both sides.

Chess is not like baseball or football.

If you took away the possibility of a draw you would often have very boring games. 

This point system is used in Korean Chess - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janggi#Miscellaneous_rules

But in Chess it could be boring, because player with material advantage, will only keep position and is not forced to win game. Maybe will be better, if there is a draw, split one point to 1/4 and 3/4 (or 1/3 and 2/3) according to point system.

I am sooo tired of all these bad players trying to change the rules.

I knew the OP would be American. They hate draws over there for some reason, whereas in England we're happy to play cricket for 5 days only for it to end in a draw... and it's great.

Just change the tournament scoring, so that a loss is worth 0 points, a draw is worth 1 point, and a win is worth 3 points.

That will encourage top players to take risks in pursuit of a win, since losing one game and winning the next is worth more (0+3=3 points) than drawing both of them would be (1+1=2 points).

Players who consistently take risks in pursuit of full points would then tend to win tournaments and rise to the top of the game.

Valid

That is a good suggestion, would be on board with that

The idea, of course, is that instead of changing the rules of the game, you just incentivize double-edged play.

The idea has been around awhile, and has been implemented in a handful of tournaments. The “success” has not been particularly compelling.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

I play mainly league (8 chessboards). A there is a lot of draws. 1 point for everybody is no-change. 1-2 points is real change. 
And If I watch some pro chess, it is world championship match. But it is really boring look 12 or more draws again. Fortunately there is at least rule about no draw agreement before 40th move. 

I like to watch shogi and go - every game has result, every game is interesting battle. 

Interesting thread.

reviving this forum because of the new rules

#newchess

100% some Draw rules are really bad. For me, a draw should only be committed through a handshake. The only true draw is when you both only have your king left. That is a draw where you can both hold your heads high. Most draws in chess feel like a loss for one player and a win for the other. Navigating into a draw is cowardly and should be an auto loss as only bad players think that way.