Score in chess like in soccer?

What do you think about that players for win get 3 points, for draw 1 and 0 for losing the game (instead of 1, 1/2 and 0)? I think it will lead to chess revolution and there will be much more interesting games to watch and play with plenty of action. Positional playing wouldn't be so popular and everyone would look for tactics in games rather then position...

 How would whole game scoring affect the actual gameplay? I'm not doubting your point, I just would like to hear your reasoning. I'm not exactly sure I agree, unless there's something I'm not thinking of.

Well, often players play for drawish positions (especially with black and especially if 1/2 point benefits there tournament ranking).

Actually the three points for a win rule was introduced in football with similar goals of reducing the number of draws and promoting attacking play. Thing is, there is not that much evidence that it changed anything.

You could achieve the same thing by just keeping wins and losses at 1 and 0, and putting draw at 1/3 then right? 1:1/3:0=3:1:0

Well, you can. But it's more logical to calculate with whole numbers. What about 1/17:1/51:0?  

I disagree. I don't think that a draw is a worse result than a decision; after all, chess is a draw.

Also, I don't think the different scoring will change anything. People will still play what they think are the best moves.

What matters is that the players fight. Well, not all the time - only in professional events where they get paid to show up, there they should have an obligation to play a full chess game. If some people playing in a tournament for themselves only want to make a quick draw, more power to them.

And I think the Sofia rule (offering a draw isn't allowed) is more effective at getting players to fight, although of course if they really want to, they can always play some opening line that leads to a forced draw.

But a well fought game that ends in a draw is in no way less valuable than a well fought game that ends in a win for one of the players.

And for saying positional play should be discouraged... I just don't see why positional play is inferior to tactical play. You can't have tactics without positional play, and you can't have positional play without tactics.

It certainly worked in the English Premier League, games regularly feature half a dozen or more goals (31 goals in 9 matches last weekend {from memory, could be wrong}).

I think your idea is a fine one DHodak, it would promote a new fighting spirit in the game to know that your opponent is less likely to meekly accept a half point. Watching the leaders disappear from sight in a large Swiss tournament would definitely galvanize players to change their playing styles/objectives.

i'm a great fan of soccer, but perhaps chess should have it's uniqueness.. is'nt it?

good idea

@Scarblac

Well SHAME ON ME! I deeply apologize if I insulted you or your chess philosophy, but in the other hand this is open forum and everybody can write their opinion. 

@DHodak: Sorry, I've reworded my post.

It just occurred to me that what you may be looking for is following IM tournaments. IMs battling each other have fewer draws, their games are often very sharp but still comprehensible to amateurs, and they play a much larger variety of openings. It's very entertaining to play through games between two 24xx players.

But I think you shouldn't expect super-GMs to play like IMs for the entertainment value.

I am not in favor of changing the way chess is scored. I am in favor of changing the tie break system in such a manner that it will encourage more fighting chess and fewer draws. Let one win mean more than 2 draws. If 2 tied players played each other let their individual game determine the winner, if it was decisive. If they drew then the winner should be the most wins. If they won the same number of games then most wins with black. If still tied then perhaps the methods currently used could be used as the next tie break. This becomes more complicated with more than 2 involved in the tie, ofcourse. Also, if I were a sponsor I simply wouldnt invite the worst offenders. I think its utterly ridiculous that in China Carlsen is the ONLY player that has won any games. All games, not involving Carlsen, have been draws ! Why ? Is Carlsen the only one fighting to win games ?  It seems that way to me.

Carlsen won today in a miniature v. Radjabov, btw.

 Thanks !  After looking at the game all I can say is WOW !  If he keeps winning games he will go over 2800 in this event I believe ! 

Did you actually look at the other games, or do you just assume that draw = no fight?

 I have not looked at all the other games, no. I have seen some of them though. It will be interesting to see what Carlsen does in the second half of the event now. With 4 wins he can win the event just by drawing the rest of his games, no doubt. Will he now coast to victory with draws or will he keep playing to win ? I hope he keeps playing to win, you ?

 I think this is the game:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1557972

I very much hope so, yes. I love how he can keep pressing 2700+ players until they break.

But I think quite a few of the draws have been great too, like Radjabov-Topalov yesterday.

Yes, I did see the Radj/Top game and agree it was a good fight too. How much Kasparov influence do you see so far ?  It seems his work with Kaspy is already paying off.