What if a draw was a null game?
Sort:
i always play to checkmate or resign when its impossible - i dont ask for a draw or play to draw, i always play for the win
I've never understood why people don't like ties no matter the game or sport. American football, ice hockey, soccer; everyone wants sudden death overtime. I'm surprised we don't see more of a call for play-off chess where once a draw is declared you get three pawns and a king in sudden death blitz. I do agree that a draw should have no point value in a tournament but I wonder what the co-relation is between draw haters and superspeedbulletblitz lovers.
If draws didn't give half points in a tournament, then a draw would be the same as a loss. So everyone would go for all out attacks all the time, since they'd have nothing to lose. This would definitely affect GM level play.
A skillful draw can be impressive, though. But I do think there are way too many draws at the GM level. A couple of years ago, there was a movement in favor of not allowing draw offers before a certain number of moves (part of the debate was whether it should be 30, 40, or 50 moves). I think GM Maurice Ashley was one of the top proponents of this.
I don't mind draws when the game is dead drawn and there's nothing either player can do about it. But offering and accepting draws because the position's even, when both players still have attacking tries available, just seems silly to me. This is what people complain about with GM draws.
--Fromper
Nov 14, 2009
0
#5
ive got a question guys.
sometimes when I play my rating doesnt change at all and it says "null" at the end of the game. the last time i beat an opponent with a rating 150 over me and got no points :(... what is that? how does it work?
Ak87: Some of your games are unrated. Only rated games affect your rating. To tell if a game is ungraded before starting the game, look to see if there is a little 'u' next to the time control.
(Note: This applies to live chess, folks.)
Nov 14, 2009
0
#7
Draws are an important part of Chess, to award the same score as a loss for them would be stupid. I'd rather see an approach which offered 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss, this way giving a pretty destinctive advantage to those who win.
It would be pointless to create a rule whereby people are not allowed to offer a draw before a certain number of moves have been played. A position could be clearly drawn after a much shorter number of moves due to a position whereby any move from the repeating best moves by either side will make it a 'lost' game.
When talking about GMs you also have to keep in mind that these men are professionals (in most cases). They are very very good at Chess and very hard for another human to beat and for this reason there are naturally going to be many draws. You also must keep in mind that considering it is their job to play Chess there is an awful lot of money/career opportunities on the line to take unecessary risks which might occasionally turn a 'drawn' game into a 'won' game.
What if a draw led to no change in rating and didn't award a half point in tournaments. Would this make top level players push even harder to get the win or are they already maxed out? Would it make top players more willing to explore in some of the supposedly equal middle game positions? Would the ratings be more clear cut or would we have a bunch of GMs stopping others from getting points by forcing the game into a draw.
How would this rule change your playing right now?