Is "Draw Death" a possible future for Chess?

 Over the years, some grandmasters, even going back to the early 19th century, have expressed concerns that chess will die a slow death due to the increased number of drawn games at the competitive levels.

As endgame theory/openings become studied more in depth and chess computers have arguably greatly surpassed human players, drawn games seem to be only rising in frequency.

Clearly, this is a very controversial topic amongst chess players/spectators at all levels, so I'm curious what the forum thinks. Are drawn games a healthy part of Chess (i.e. there is skill involved in countering all threats to the point no one can claim victory, including stalemating), or is it a sign that Chess needs to be tweaked (i.e. most other games have low draw rates, even within the chess family. For example, shogi has a 1-2% draw rate).

Is Chess the best it's ever been, or will it need some sort of change in order to survive well into the future?

I'm sure they know why they are resigning if they are resigning.

Tal said it best, something along the lines of playing for a draw is a sin, anyone have that quote?

"To play for a draw, at any rate with white, is to some degree a crime against chess."  -  Mikhail Tal

http://www.chessquotes.com/topic-draws

Make wins worth 5 points and I bet you'd see a lot more decisive games at all levels! I think more minor scoring tweaks are sufficient though. :)

Oh, makes more sense tiger =)

And, yes, exactly cortez!

3-1-0 is the best system to avoid draws.

(3 points for a win 1 for a draw 0 for a loss.)

While I like the idea of changing scoring techniques, they mostly only apply in tournament or "best of" series. I believe that any solution (if one is in fact needed) should fit the independant game level as well. The komidashi rule in Go works because there is already an intrinsic scoring system built into the nature of the game, but there isn't one in Chess. That said, I'm sure an independant game level scoring system could possibly be created.

Also, hey SpikeWilliam. I believe I posted in that thread a few times yesterday. If you have any ideas to add to it I'd be happy to help you brainstorm

I don't think changing the scoring system is necessarily fair. Choosing 3-1 seems very arbitrary. A fair value is surely not exactly 3. Maybe 2.8738498274 is exactly fair. I think to be fair, you have to use a method that is objectively fair, like allowing white to play the first move, then letting black decide if he wants to play white or reply with black. Or Armageddon games seem interesting, where a bidding process takes place.

Fine 2.8738498274-1-0 (2.8738498274 points for a win, 1 for a draw,  0 for a loss. lol!

How about 0 points for a draw? Both players ratings stay the same as if the game never happened. 

Since the overall level of play has improved and players have more stuff memorized, I would go with a faster time control. At least if you're talking about top level tournament chess. Something like an hour per side, to start with. The advantage of this solution is you don't have to change the basic game in any way, nor do you have to create some crazy scoring system. This would also make games more exciting by promoting the playing of provocative moves and trying for a win. I say, leave "perfect chess" for the computers and create a more exciting competitive environment for the players and spectators.

If you speed up the time controls the quality of the games will fall and you will ensure even more drawn games because when players get short of time they will be more likely to agree a draw rather than blundering as their time is getting too low ... 

I think scoring 0 for a draw is not so crazy. Think about it this way: you only get a point if you checkmate the opponents king.

the idea is crazy, then people may try to win-trade and it could be hard.

any system where more points are given out than draws is bad, a group of 4 or so people may agree to win trade among themselves to secure the top of the leaderboards.

A win-loss conspiracy is much more difficult to initiate and pull off than a draw one. With a draw you literally just agree to it. 

At the moment matches between the strongest engines even at very long time controls still have plenty of decisive games.  Even the strongest engines are still a very very long way from playing "perfect" chess if such a thing is even possible.