Let's make chess more like real life:
Sort:
Following that logic, a draw would get someone 0.1-0.5 points. With a stalemate the one with the bigger army would get more points. It has some funny rings to it though, when ahead in material offering a draw would in fact mean offering that you get more points 
.
Secondly quick draws with no captures would give both players 0.5! If you are a fighter and win 60% of your games and lose 40%. Scoring average 0.7 in your wins and 0.0 in your loses, then on average you would take home 0.42 points. 0.08 points less then someone who takes the quick draws. Despite you scoring 10% better.
Now tell me the truth.. Are you secretly related to Grischuk?
Oh and what about losing? Surely it is better to surrender without any casualties then to get your entire army killed. So losing would get you 0.00-0.09 points?
Nope I don't think this is a good idea at all.
Ever heard of Pyrrhus of Epirus? He won 1-0
Artsew wrote:
Secondly quick draws with no captures would give both players 0.5! If you are a fighter and win 60% of your games and lose 40%. Scoring average 0.7 in your wins and 0.0 in your loses, then on average you would take home 0.42 points. 0.08 points less then someone who takes the quick draws. Despite you scoring 10% better.
While that does seem to be a fact of life, I agree it is not a good way to conduct a tournament. Also in life, people can recover from injuries. Often threats are more powerful than actions, and fights are not necessary if people already know who would win. Sometimes people will die for what they believe in, though, or for others, making the debate multi-dimensional. Obviously that part can't be expressed by chess. So I guess it does make more since to just give the winner 1 point and the loser 0.
The other system I considered is that if the loser lasts at least 40 moves before checkmate, they get 1/4 and the winner gets 3/4.
As for stalemate, I think we should keep the rule, but it should count as an infinitely long game, and the side with the advantage should get 3/4 and the side with the disadvantage 1/4. Perpetual check should get a full 1/2. 3 move repetition should also get 1/2.
Artsew wrote:
Oh and what about losing? Surely it is better to surrender without any casualties then to get your entire army killed. So losing would get you 0.00-0.09 points?
Nope I don't think this is a good idea at all.
I think the loser should get 0 even if they resign. We don't want someone resigning a move before checkmate and getting some points. However, if mate is at least 10 moves away, or a pawn is 10 moves away from queening, then maybe the loser could call it and forfeit the game, and get 0.09 if they continue playing after forfeiting and can actually last another 10 moves before a mate or promotion.
There also is the idea of 7 point games, where if it is a draw, black gets 4 points and white 3. And white gets 6 points for winning vs black getting 7 points.
Based on chess game statistics, White wins 40% of the time, Black at best 30%, and at best there is a draw 30% of the time. It would seem White should get 3 points for a win, and Black 4 points for a win. If the differences are settled by the wins, then the draws can simply be 2 points each, and Black gets 0 points for losing. You could break it down another way that gets every case more accurate, but there would be fractions involved.
AaronSolt wrote:
How many points you get depends also on how much of your army got sacrificed to win. If you sac your whole army to win, you get 0.6 points. If you win without losing any material, you get 1 point. If in between, it is prorated.
I don't like the sound of this.
Which military general is better: The one who kills all his soldiers to win the war? Or the one who assassinates the dictator without a soldier dead?
Not the best analogy.
Who is the better fighter? The boxer who got his own ribs broken before finally doing enough damage to the other to win? Or the boxer who KO's the other on the first blow?
Neither one. Actually, I'd be more inclined to say that the former is superior. It's like in sports where a team that blows out most of its opponents always(I can't think of a single exception off the top of my head) loses in the end.
Maybe rooks can represent tax payer money, tanks provided for combat. If the general returns home with all the military equipment destroyed, the country will have to pay for more equipment, which is hard on tax payers.
I noticed in some checkmate combos where someone has the option to sacrifice a bishop and follow with mate with the queen, often they will do it in reverse order, sacrificing the queen to show off how confident they are they will win. Imagine if a general was that way with the soldiers and equipment? 1 full point? Or 0.6?
Chess players =/= generals.
Chess is nothing like war. Please don't mistake one for another.
How many points you get depends also on how much of your army got sacrificed to win. If you sac your whole army to win, you get 0.6 points. If you win without losing any material, you get 1 point. If in between, it is prorated.
Which military general is better: The one who kills all his soldiers to win the war? Or the one who assassinates the dictator without a soldier dead?
Who is the better fighter? The boxer who got his own ribs broken before finally doing enough damage to the other to win? Or the boxer who KO's the other on the first blow?
Maybe rooks can represent tax payer money, tanks provided for combat. If the general returns home with all the military equipment destroyed, the country will have to pay for more equipment, which is hard on tax payers.
I noticed in some checkmate combos where someone has the option to sacrifice a bishop and follow with mate with the queen, often they will do it in reverse order, sacrificing the queen to show off how confident they are they will win. Imagine if a general was that way with the soldiers and equipment? 1 full point? Or 0.6?