Draws in Chess

We all know that chess has a high number of draws, some of those draws are fine, fighting draws, and some are very bad for the game, pre-arranged draws and lazy draws, but how to solve this "problem"?

Well, I've seen some sugestions that are really drastic and completely change the game, they usually aim to eliminate opening theory in the hopes of reducing draws. I don't agree with any of those, yes FRC may be fun to play and a good game in its own right, but if we have to completely change the game to avoid draws, then what's the point? We are not even playing chess anymore.

I've also seen some sugestions to reduce the number of endgame draws, like turning stalemate into a win or at least half a win, but even tho you might say that the stalemate rule doesn't make sense, it actually makes chess endgames a lot more beatiful that would otherwise be, also most players fail to see the drastic changes that this would cause to the middlegame and, consequently, to the opening.

Some sugested that players should receive extra money acordingly to the number of wins they had during the tournament, I think that this could be viable as long as most of the money is split depending on the standings.

One interesting idea is that after a draw players switch colors and play with the remainder time of their clocks until there is a winner, but games with increment could go forever, so there is some problems.

So, what's my ideia? Most of the top tournaments use some sort of tie-breaks if the players are tied, but I'm particularly interested in the tie-breaks used for matches. If after the classical games the players are tied they play rapid, then blitz and then armageddon. What if we apply this to regular tournaments? The idea is simple, the players play a classical game, if the game draws they immediately switch colors and play a rapid game, 15+10 for example, if the game is still drawn they switch colors once again and play a blitz game, 3+2, and if they draw yet again they switch colors and go for armageddon. That way someone will walk away with the point, we still could have fighting draws, there would be no pre-arranged draws and, the main point, would be so much fun to watch. One consideration to be made is that the white player would get black in the armageddon, this may be good or bad depending on how you see it.

I should note that players would need a lot of stamina, think about it, after playing for 8 hours, 7 hours classic game and a 1 hour rapid game, they still had to play blitz and possibly armageddon, that's tough. So, what you guys think about that?

While all of the ideas mentioned are viable on at least some level, there are problems holding them back, in my opinion.

The issue with switching colors after a draw and playing is that many players will be winded after a day of playing chess and will just want the draw so they can go home. Also, if both players agreed it was a draw, and then switched and found out one side was better (and consequently won), the 'loser' would feel pretty bad, and I think hate towards this method of tiebreak would develop quickly.

You idea could extend OTB tournament times considerably, though that isn't too big an issue. The real kicker with this is the very concept of armegeddon chess. Part of the appeal of chess is the game being - other than the small advantage white holds for moving first - completely fair. Giving black draw odds and/or giving white more time will never exactly quantify to balance out the advantage the other side is recieving.

I think a lot of these tiebreakers are fun though! They could be used in a non-serious chess playing environment.

I have considered this subject extensively, and, without changing some natural aspect of gameplay, or scoring, have not arrived at any solution that makes ultimate sense. I have considered giving extra portion of scoring to the player with more material at the end of a book drawn endgame, for example. In other words, an attempt to have finer gradations of scoring, since actual winning requires a large preponderance of material. This would, however, change the way players play the game in terms of tactics and strategy, which would not be good. Chess is what it is. There are other games like Go and Japanese Chess, which are more complex and thus have fewer draws. So there are options for game players that don't want to deal with the large percentage of draws. Overall, I think Chess is the most fun and exciting of these games, one reason being the design of the pieces is so cool! Japanese Chess just uses flat pieces and Go is just all round stones, lol. Hey, it does make a difference. Plus, Japanese Chess, the pawns don't block, which is a totally different strategic mindset from western Chess. Draws can be the result of exciting battles and players and fans can also learn a lot from draws. I would much prefer a decisive result, but in conclusion, some aspect of gameplay would have to drastically change.

Yeah, we could remove the armageddon part as it is a bit extreme. Without armageddon we would still have reduced draws and a lot of exciting rapid and even blitz games to watch. Unfortunatly without armageddon we cannot guarantee that would be no pre-arranged draws, but wouldn't be worse than what we have today. Also at the very top level pre-arranged draws don't seem to be that much of a problem, even tho there have been some controversy troughout history.

Also by having rapid and blitz games after draws we would force the players to practice with different time controls and would raise the skill needed to be a top chess player. Even some of the best classical chess players may not be as good in rapid or blitz, unless we're talking about magnus, he's the champ in all three time controls.

Yeah, I wouldn't like to change scoring system or endgame aspects, chess endgames are beautiful the way they are. I wouldn't really compare Go to Chess, they are very different, but I really like Shogi. Shogi has fewer draws by nature, because of the piece drops the game gets more chaotic as it reaches the endgame, it never simplifies, unlike chess. Shogi also has some weird point system to reduce the number of draws that I don't particularly agree, it takes some of the beauty out of the game.

Shogi uses a system where if the players draw they have to replay the game with colors reversed in the same time control. That wouldn't be very viable in chess in my opinion, Chess is much more about competition, while Shogi is a lot more about tradition and culture, but that reminds me of how old matches used to be like, the matches would go on until one of the players has a determined number of wins, so if they keep drawing the match would last forever. A match for the world title in 1984 between Karpov and Kasparov lasted 48 games before it was officialy aborted after 5 wins for Karpov, 3 to Kasparov and 40 draws, the winner would be the first to reach 6 wins.

P.S. Am I the only one that would prefer the spacing between paragraphs in chess.com to be alittle bit bigger? It makes very tiring to read the way it is.

Woah woah woah. I don't agree with this at all. I kind of like the fact that draws exist. It makes chess a non-zero-sum game. I don't understand everyone's problem with drawn games. Every game is beautiful in its own way. Why can't we be happy watching chess instead of craving for action action action?

Why are draws abhorred so persistently? I don't see the problem with drawing.