Three-Move Draw Scoring

A modest proposal: in a game in which no player is FIDE rated 2000+, fewer than 36 moves have been made, and a three-move draw occurs, the player who is up material is assessed a loss.  If the material score is even, both players are assessed a loss.  

Reasoning: move draws are important in high-level chess but a waste of time and learning opportunity for average and learning players.  Every single chess game could end in a move draw within ten moves.  Disincentivizing move draws forces non-expert players to actually learn to play chess instead of sucking out of games and wasting everyone's time.

The vast majority of games at lower levels end in a win or loss. There's not a draw problem anywhere but at the highest levels.

Why a 2000 rating, specifically? Why 36 moves exactly? Why does the player who is up material lose?

Even if we accept that draws by threefold repetition are a problem at lower levels (which I don't agree with, personally) I fail to see any basis for these specific conditions to be applied to them.

How much material does one have to be up to fall under the threat of losing due to a 3 fold repetition? Why are you choosing material as the deciding factor that determines a win or a loss?

If you want to disincentivize draws due to 3-fold repetition, do you feel that it is best to create a winning scenario that encourages players to play for it? Do you feel that it is best for players who are "up material" to have to play sub-optimal moves in order to not lose to your proposal?

Arbitrary numbers to bound the rule to people who are not expert players and generally to the middle of most games. Obviously, endgames do often end in draws, especially for novice/medium-skill players.

Any material. A person up material should not seek a move draw; they should be trying to win the game. There's no situation in which a player should find themselves that requires it. If they're in danger of going down material or losing, they should accept the loss, because they should've capitalized on their advantage.

What do you mean by "sub-optimal moves?" What situation before 36 moves have been made would a person with a material advantage find themselves in that didn't involve gross negligence on their part?

Being up in material doesn't mean you're winning. It could be equal or even losing.

But again, draws are not an issue at most levels of play.

Ok, so essentially you have no basis for any part of that rule apart from what you feel should be right?

An attacking player can find themselves up material (as the defender sacrifices material to try to stop the attack) or down material (if they themselves sacrifice material to open up the king). In either scenario the defender may find a forced repetition that holds the game to a draw. In your system these two games would have different results. Does that seem logical?

Yes, what's wrong with proposing a rule change based on my experiences? Remember, the last major rule change was made in order to avoid draws.

What's wrong with two games having two different results? As I said, only in cases where a player is up material and still consents to a move draw would they be assessed a loss. They don't have to accept the draw. More to the point, they should play well enough to capitalize on their advantage such that they should never need a move draw.

If a sub 2k players finds a clever way to for example sac material to force a 3 fold from an otherwise losing position, isn't that a great learning opportunity for both?

Also 2k fide is already pretty high up, lots of guys who play their whole lives and study hard never get past 1800 fide

A pawn advantage shouldn't be the criteria used to create a new meta in chess. Instead of playing for stalemate to gain half a point, players can now play for a 3-fold to gain a full point. Lower rated players have enough problems understanding stalemate and 3-fold repetition. There isn't a need to create another one by this over complicated solution to a problem that frankly doesn't exist.

If a player has to sacrifice material in order to avoid losing a full point due to your proposal, that is a sub-optimal move.

Also, I've got another question, If material is even and a 3-fold happens, do you honestly feel that the fair result is to give both players a loss, and no change in elo rating. Do you feel that the under-rated player deserves nothing for being able hold a higher rated player to a draw?

That it doesn't make any sense?

This is your last draw:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/123054679284?username=md1806&move=60

You were up a pawn, but your position was actually slightly worse, because your bad king position. Your opponent gave perpetual check thinking it was a good result for him. Now you propose that you should have lost the game after that perp? Seriously? In which world would that make any sense? In which world would that fix any problem?

When you play at home, House Rules. No issue. Do what you want.

Yes, it would be hypocritical of me not to apply my own rule to myself. I should've lost 8 points.

"A pawn advantage shouldn't be the criteria used to create a new meta in chess." Why not? You and others keep throwing out these grand pronouncements, but y'all haven't articulated a reason why things shouldn't change. Your specific objection here is the difference between .5 and 1 point? What percentage of the average player's chess.com rating is that? .001?

I absolutely think learning and mid-tier players should be punished for seeking draws before endgame when they're not down material. Draws are a waste of everyone's time (this also goes for high-ranked players too, but they play a different game). Adversarial games exist to determine a winner and a loser, not a limp handshake commemorating a limper draw.

"In which world would that make any sense? In which world would that fix any problem?"

Did you read my original post? It would solve the problem of time-wasting draws, and it would incentivize playing to win rather than playing to suck out of a tied/advantageous position.

Your own game is a counterexample to both points. That game was not a time-wasting draw, it was a hard fought one. And the guy who gave perpetual check (your opponent) would be incentivized to do so even more, as he would have won.

Bold of you to assume how I feel about my own chess games. Every game I play that ends in a draw is a waste of time. The ones that do so when I'm down material are less so, but still. If this site actually allowed you to regularly play against people rated hundreds of points above you, like others do (cough one that starts with Li), I would resign games rather than play move draws. But I'm stuck challenging only people within a narrow band, so rating points are precious.

There are still several key problems with your idea, of which the most pertinent are:

1) you haven't proven that draws are a problem, beyond the fact that you yourself regard them as a waste of time. A subsidiary problem here is that you haven't proven that draws by repetition in particular are a problem at the level you're talking about.

2) you haven't addressed the point that being up or down material doesn't correlate reliably with whether your position was worse, better, or equal. You are trying to apply a moral standard to the player who is up material, on the basis that they 'should' have pressed harder to win, ignoring the fact that the player who is up material might never have had an advantage on the board, and indeed might be doing very well to escape with a draw.

3) you haven't addressed the problem that your solution creates, namely that there would be a serious incentive to play for a draw by repetition if you can sacrifice material to do so. Given that draws by repetition are pretty rare to begin with, I think there's a reasonable chance you might actually make them more common if this rule change was instigated.

You're proposing a fairly major rule change. You need to justify the need for it by identifying a problem, and you need to show how your change is a solution. Thus far you've done neither.