Why is every non-checkmate a 0.5-0.5 draw?

so this is winning for black:

This proposal has a couple of issues:
1) Sacrifices are even more risky, given that you'll lose points for material, so the chances for gambits or dynamic positions will be reduced even further. 
2) One can win a tournament only by drawing his matches, which sort of defeats the anti-draw purpose, as a draw is safer than pushing of a win. 
3) It's overly complex to keep track as a person following the sport, you'd literally need a spreadsheet with all your favorite players in order to get a tournament picture
4) The draw it self is not the issue, the issue is how dynamic and interesting the position is during the game, and this rules don't fix nor do they give benefits to a player who wishes to play in that way. In summary, it tackles the wrong issue. 
The 3-1-0 system is a far more sensible attempt into an anti-draw system, and to give the win more values, as it is simpler and has worked for others competitions, football being a prime example. 

I'm not convinced gambits are the issue at stake here - it's really about positional sacrifices, where you sacrifice material and do not gain a winning combination or attack in return, but instead some positional gains like pawn structure or an outpost for a knight.

how about this then

Proves nothing, as this is precisely what the OP wants to avoid. I agree with your opinion, but I don't think this helps our case

That's a horrible idea, especially the parts of perpetual check and 3-fold. It shows a poor understanding of the game of chess to suggest that being up material is enough to make you winning. It happens often where one side sacs and has a mating attack, and the other side has to escape into a perpetual or 3-fold. In this position, your solution would have the "winning" side get 0.4 because he sacced to get a near win.

In addition, it would make endgames so much more depressing for the losing side. As it is currently, you need to play well even after you have a theoretical win to convert it, especially in, for example, a queens endgame. One wrong move and the win slips from your grasp. That change makes it pathetically easy to win many endgames where you're up a pawn.

This is a strong argument.

The other thing I don't like is the point value for material. Currently they are a guideline. In this system they would become the actual measurement of the score

Bfc97 wrote “The 3-1-0 system is a far more sensible attempt into an anti-draw system, and to give the win more values, as it is simpler and has worked for others competitions, football being a prime example.”

l agree with this.

Good call: think of the power of two bishops vs. two knights. There are a million positional things that trump material.

Sacrifices in general would be problematic once material starts to count for the points you gain in the match, those were simply examples. 
I'd personally argue that gambits are a style of positional sacrifice, as often their main gain is an edge in development or a better coordination of your pieces , which is a positional gain. 

I agree with #26.

And I'm not sure if a 3-1-0 would result in less draws as a player tries to avoid that his opponent gets three points instead of one only.

After I quick research I didn't find a proof that the rule change in football worked the way it was intended to.

While I'm sure the OP's suggestions are well meant, they are a solution where there is no problem! In chess, you win by checkmate, you lose by checkmate, or you draw. Why is this a problem? Why do we care if one player has an extra piece or pawn, or has stalemated his opponent, or has a better hair cut? He didn't mate you, so he doesn't win! Style points are for kids

They should implement this in a different way in gm games. 

Not every non checkmate is a draw. If someone resigns or loses on time, that's not a draw. It's not a checkmate either.  I only read the first sentence, where it seems like you answered your own question. Every game that doesn't end in someone winning and the other person losing is a draw because both sides DID play equally. So a half point for each person makes perfect sense. Some people might not like a half point for each side because they played equally, but there is always the option of just winning if you dont like it. I cant think of a draw possibility where both sides didnt play equally. Every scenario I can think of involves one side, or sometimes both sides, playing no better and no worse than the other side, or, played better, but also played worse enough to match the other side. 

If you want to judge the outcome by how many resouces the players have at game end you need to include the time, because time is also a resource.

Say the game ends with player 1 having only a king and player 2 a king and a bishop. The game was a game with two hours for each player for the first 40 moves. Game ended after 35 moves. At that point player 1 had 30 minutes left while player 2 had only 2 minutes left. So the difference in time resources was big. Which player had more resources than the other player and thus more points? Not simple, right?

Or what about this situation: A game was played, player 1 had a rook left, player 2 a bishop left after a game where player 1 had the best position and more resources. Suddenly there is a situation where player 2 can pin player 1's rook to the king. So he takes the rook. Player 1 can now take the bishop. It is a tournament and before player 1 takes the bishop the arbeiter comes around and says, no you may not do that, the game ended exactly at that point where the rook was taken and now a lone bishop is the only piece left except for the kings, and since player 2 has that bishop he gets more points. Not fair!

Hi IPG,

Thanks for your feedback.  However, Emanuel Lasker and Nigel Short don't think that both sides played equally when the result is a stalemate.  I mean, the king is in a hut surrounded by enemy soldiers on all sides, and yet... they tie?

Kind regards,
David

Hi apotosaurus,

I would score it as a partial-win for Black.  Not a knockout, but a win-by-decision.  Certainly Black is closer to winning than White is, and had a harder game by virtue of playing the Black pieces.

I think it is silly to say that they are both 50% winners in that position.  Assuming it leads to a stalemate it would be 0.8 for Black and 0.2 for White.

Kind regards,
David