Ways to avoid super GM draws

Thank you Brian, you are the only person who has seemed to understand this thread's purpose.

Actually, I think the biggest hindrance to the popularity of chess is the fact that it's chess.

I personally think speeding up the time controls is the best solution. It would be appreciated if you guys can post your opinions too. The fact that many boring draws are occurring and is reducing popularity is undeniable. Chess needs money or it will lose its importance and recognition in the world of sports.

I think increasing the speed of a game also tests the players' skill more. I think Greg is right and 40|2 is the best time control for the world championship with two matches a day, maybe.

Old system: Win = 1 point, draw = 1/2 point, loss = 0 points.

New system: Win = 3 points, draw = 1 point, loss = 0 points.

To allow a direct comparison, scale the old system up by x2, so that a draw is worth 1 point in both systems. Now it goes:

Old system: Win = 2 points, draw = 1 point, loss = 0 points.

New system: Win = 3 points, draw = 1 point, loss = 0 points.

Assume that Player A and Player B are in a double-round-robin tournament, so that they play each other twice, once with each color.

If they draw both games, the old and new systems both give identical results (2 - 2 score). So let's look at the situation where they split the match with one win each:

Old system (with draws worth half as much as a win):

They each win one game: score 2 - 2. Each player receives 2 points for the game he won, and 0 points for the loss.

Exactly the same scores as if they had drawn both games.

New system: (with wins worth 3 points instead of 2):

They each win one game: score 3 - 3. Exactly the same as if you were using the Old system (2 points for a win, 1 for a draw), but ALSO giving 1 point for LOSING a game.

The math works out the same in both cases.

Although I certainly like some of the other suggestions.

@bluuemu,

Yes, if you use your logic. Actually the way I think of it is 3-3 instead of 2-2 means you are giving somebody an extra point for winning a game. If it works in soccer/football, why not in chess? 

As mentioned, winning a game is about as tough as drawing three games.

Yes, BUT...

Every single example I can come up with, where using the 3-1-0 (win/draw/loss) scoring system changes the tournament result (by moving a player who wins and loses up past a player who draws twice), would produce EXACTLY THE SAME result if you were using a 2-1-1 scoring system, which awards a player a full point for losing a game!

Mathematically, the two systems (3-1-0 and 2-1-1) give identical results.

Now let's use some of the logic we learned in high school... "Two things that are equal to the same thing, are equal to each other".

So when someone presses for the 3-1-0 scoring system, they might as well be saying "Let's make draws equal to losses"... because that's exactly what the 2-1-1 system EXPLICITLY does (2-1-1 : draws worth the same as losses), and since the 2-1-1 system is mathematically isomorphic with the 3-1-0 system, that's also what the 3-1-0 scoring system does.

Yes, but how come no-one finds this problem in soccer? The 3-1-0 is actually only producing the same result in some cases. Consider the following

GAME 1: Win for player A

GAME 2: Draw

The score with 3-1-0 system is 4-1.

The score with 2-1-1 is 3-2.

So, the results are not the same. IF your argument is that if two systems produce the same result even in a single situation then they are equal, let me prove that wrong.

GAME 1- Draw

GAME 2- Draw

Whether you use a 2-1-0 system or a 59-1-5000 system the result is the same. Does this mean that the two systems are equivalent? No. It just means that on THIS case they show the same result.

I think that 3-1-0 is a great system. I must disagree with your arguments.

Easy to prove me wrong. Just show me a tournament score-table, in both formats (old and new) where the new format re-arranges the prize-winners... and which cannot be duplicated by giving free points for losing games.

Changing scoring system is seems not fair since it is not change the basic nature of this game.Changing time control is more reasonable,but whether this is reasonable for beginner.I think standard time control is to make the player to think in their optimum needs even for amateur players.It is not right for blunder to be happened because of time restriction.

Aman: Here's the sort of thing that I'm talking about -

Suppose three tournament players have very different styles. One of them draws most of his games, the second draws about a third of his games, while the third almost never draws.

In a weekend six-round Swiss tournament, the "draw master" draws all six of his games. The second player wins a few, loses a few and draws the rest. The third player either wins or loses all his games... no draws.

Their section of the score-table ends up looking like this:

Player A - draw-draw-draw-draw-draw-draw

Player B - loss - win - draw - loss - win - draw

Player C - win - loss - win - loss - win - loss

By the old (2-1-0) system of scoring, all three players end up tied with 6 points.

By the new (3-1-0) system, we have a winner... Player A gets only 6 points (as before), but Player B gets 8 points and Player C gets 9 points.

Sounds great, right?

Except...

Re-score it using the obviously broken 2-1-1 system, which rewards a player just as much for losing as it does for drawing. How do the scores look now?

Oh... right. Player A gets only 6 points (as before), but Player B gets 8 points and Player C gets 9 points.

EXACTLY the same as the 3-1-0 system that you are advocating. EXACTLY the same.

Again... easy to prove me wrong. Quote (or make up) a tournament table where the 3-1-0 system creates a decisive result that CANNOT be duplicated by giving the players free points for lost games.

If you can do that, it will be the first one I've seen.

It's only super-GM's we're talking about here, not beginners. For beginners only 5-10% of games are draws.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but what about this using 3-1-0:

  A  B  C  D  E  F

A x  1  3  0  3  0

B 1  x  1  1  1  1

C 0  1  x  1  1  1

D 3  1  1  x  1  1

E 0  1  1  1  x  1

F 3  1  1  1  1  x

In this tournament, A D and F tie for first on 7 points.

If it was scored 2-1-0, D & F would tie on 6 and A would only have 5. So the result is different from the traditional score.

If you score the results 2-1-1, A wins outright with 7, since D & F only score 6.

So 3-1-0 does not give the same result as 2-1-1.

Apologies if I've misunderstood your point!

But it is about standard chess.I thought they have played rapid chess in tournaments.

Thank you. So 3-1-0 is a great idea, and for some reason blueemu thinks it doesn't work.

BTW, here is a good suggestion for a world championship with 24 games. 

• The players play twelve rounds with 2 40|2 second games each day
• A rest day every third day.
• Rapid (25|3) tiebreak on final day for 2 games at a time, if match score is still even. Continues for three two-game pairs or six games.
• If even after these six games they are tied, then 1 armeggedon game with 10|0 for white and 7|0 for black.

As I would earn three points for a win and a loss, but only 2 points for two draws such a change in the rules would encourage pre-arranged game fixing.  As it only involves two players (rather than two teams of 11 and their managers and coaches as in soccer) it would be quite easy for two players to pre-arrange two wins (one for each) and very hard for anyone to prove.

The end result would be even less genuine competition than before and changing the scoring in tournaments is not going to bring in vast numbers of spectators. It is not soccer. It does not have mass appeal for spectators and probably never will have.  Many chess fans, and I am one of them, are happy to see a few decisive games amongst the hard fought draws in a match between  players of comparable strength.

Chess is intrinsically a zero-sum game, and I think it is best left that way.  For anyone that does not like it  there are a few equally challenging games of the same general kind other games where a decisive result is always (or almost always) achieved, for example Go (a.k.a. Wei-Chi, Igo, Baduk)

No it isn't.  Chess has never been more popular. This is a problem only for tournament organisers that want to make money from chess as a spectacle.