Excellent idea & blog. Draws should score less than half of a win.
Also would help if no agreed-draws before 30 moves & 12 captures.
Your English is great, far better than my Portuguese. It might help to keep the length of sentences less than 30 words.
First of all, I'm sorry if I make any mistakes in my grammar, since english is not my first language.
Most information I'll be sharing is from the book Chess Opening Names: The Fascinating and Entertaining History Behind the First Few Moves, by Nathan Rose. It's an excellent book and I recommend everyone interested in modern chess history to read it.
Back in the 1800's the chess international scene was less unified than it is today. There was a particular tournament in Paris that happened in 1867 where the Danish Gambit was played for the first time that the scoring system was different: 1 point for a win, 0 for a draw and 0 for a loss. Drawing was basically as bad as losing, so it was an incentive to players go to sharper, agressive lines. and there wasnt "drawing" specialists at chess like there is today, since drawing was not a good result for either side. Nowadays it's not uncommon to see grandmasters agreeing on a draw even before things get interesting, sharing the point. This risk-averse playstile generated by draws being rewarding is not good for the spectators - at least, most of them, since danger, excitement and decisive results are way more interesting than seeing Sveshnikov draws all day long.
In fact, it's not until more recently that drawing started to be actually 0,5 points, while a win was 1 and it was accompanied by a change in the way of playing chess. In my opinion this was a huge modifier in the playstile of chess, since players started to play chess so they could not lose and not that so they could win.
A lot of people think that this problem is a chess problem, but it isnt, actually. Soccer had the same problem back in the 1980's, so the footbaal league in England changed the score points: instead of 2 for a win and 1 for a draw, they made 3 for a win and that had the desired result: the number of drawn matches actually declined and later on other soccer leagues quickly followed and today the 3/1/0 system is ubiquitous.
So, could chess embrace such a radical departure ? Maybe 1,5 for a win, 0,5 for a draw and 0 for a loss, or even the 3/1/0 system ? Or even the old Paris system that only rewarded 1 point for winners ? With these changes, winning a game and losing another would be better than drawing to games.
What made me think about this topic is that I recently came back to chess - yes, Im low rated -, but Im really interested both in chess history and chess profissional scene(as a spectator, of course); and I believe it's just sad to see classical games decided by an Armageddom game that is kind of a blitz game, so that the tournament does not have 1 billion drawing games. I think would be way more interesting if simply the scoring system changes to make two wins better than two draws and stop rewarding risk-free drawish playstiles.
Anyways, that's it. What you guys think ?