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

You would be correct to put me in the category of the "emergency brake" is a really cool feature of chess. It is in no way a bug. 

So maybe let them offer their input instead of trying to foist an irresponsible and poorly-conceived, massive change on them. If the proposed changes went into effect, my first instinct would be to quit "chess". I doubt I'm the only one. How does that benefit anyone?

Using this system what would be the score of the World Championship Match now after 10 draws?

Just curious.  It seems to me that the match is even, so any other score does not make it more fair.  

But maybe reserving this point system only for the case where the match is even after all 12 games are played makes more sense.  Another way to tie break.

why does black get more points

Great question!  I just created a new spreadsheet to show the scores in the 6 various scoring systems.  I'll update it after every game.  With my proposal, the current score would be:

Carlsen 4.8
Caruana 5.2

In every other scoring system it's a dead tie.

*note* None of the games ended in a stalemate, and the players have no incentive to play all the way to the end to create a stalemate.  Thus, they may as well just agree to the easy draw and save their energy.  If any of these games can be forced into a stalemate... that would change the score significantly in three of the six scoring systems.  Let me know if you can find a forced stalemate, and I'll revise.

Kind regards,
David

To compensate for moving second.  There is a well-established first-move advantage in chess.

Kind regards,
David

This raises two issues:

First, obviously, there's the fact that they would play differently if the scoring system was differently.

But more importantly does it feel like Caruana should be ahead? If the match was called off, would it feel appropriate if everyone was all, "Congratulations, Fabs, you're the new world champion?" 

To me, that'd be as absurd as the championship being determined by armageddon. We've been watching to well-matched players duel for 10 games. They've both had brilliant moments and they've both had blunders. They SHOULD be even at this point. 

Is this really a problem?

If there is a well established first move advantage for moving first how come we have these 10 draws from 10 games so far then?  Clearly the advantage is so minuscule now at the top level as to be largely irrelevant.

Also, post-applying scoring to games already played ignores the fact that had such scoring been in place the games would naturally happen differently.  People would start playing for all sorts of silly 'wins' that have nothing to do with attempting to checkmate their opponent.

The idea that 'the' problem with top level chess is simply that there are too many draws therefore we should introduce some tacky alternatives so that games that are really just draws yield different numbers of points just adds a WWE wrestling style factor - i.e. nothing of value, just a something happening for the sake of it.

I've also seen numerous people claim 3-1-0 is a great idea 'because it works in football'.  Nobody ever posts any evidence of this though.  The only article I read on the matter showed statistics that basically the number of draws in football is the same as it always was.  So what it does is give a bigger advantage to those that do win.  Fair enough, we get winners of tournaments that way, but the games themselves still yield the draws so it depends what problem it is trying to fix.

As for the point that chess is not a spectator sport - professional chess players get paid to play chess.  They get paid by a variety of sources, but very few of those sources just do it out of the goodness of their heart.  Most are sponsors, in some form or other.  Sponsors give money for things because audiences see their brand and (hopefully for the sponsors) buy their product.  If there is no audience then there is no sponsorship and there is no prize money except in tournaments with an entry fee which is not what high level pro chess players play for.

If you mean the changes as set forth by the original poster, I can understand your reaction.

But I proposed making stalemate worth only 1/5 as much as checkmate. And then perpetual check worth 1/50 as much, and my third victory condition worth 1/500 as much.

So chess is only changed under the circumstance where no one manages at all to ever checkmate.

The poor chessplayer has to work just as hard for 1/500 of a point - but in return, he avoids having to go back to his day job.

That's true. But if black gets more points for a draw, but the same points for winning and losing, then that means all you're doing is adding a constant number to the games - since to compensate for first-move advantage, each player plays an equal number of times as white and black - and then giving black fewer points, not more, for each time he manages the feat which is much more difficult for him of inflicting checkmate on his opponent.

This is just a technical flaw in your proposal, and I'm sure that you can tweak it. On my web site, I discuss an earlier attempt of mine at a modified scoring scheme, Dynamic Scoring, where I keep both checkmates and the draw in the same place, but give black more points for the smaller victories to coax black to play more aggressively; you might want to look at this.

Sure, it's not fair to judge their match by rules that they aren't playing by, because they would play differently to try to score partial victories if they knew that they could. We all understand that. The system has to be in place before the match to have a true experiment.

Does it feel like they SHOULD be even at this point? To be separated by less than half a point after ten games is very close to equal. Just a stalemate in game 11 would put Carlsen ahead of Caruana.

If two boxers fail to knock each other out after 10 rounds SHOULD they be even? In one sense, yes. But boxing doesn't stop there. They give us a way to determine a winner when both are left standing. And I believe that's much more satisfying to spectators and sponsors.

Kind regards,

David

I appreciate this argument. Not sure if it's won me over yet, but I'm still thinking on it.  Why did you choose 1/5, 1/50, and 1/500? Is there a special relationship in those numbers, a reason why 5 stalemates are worth a checkmate?

Rather than trying to combine the outcomes into one score, we could just track each value separately as independent tie-breakers. For example, a player with 2 wins, a stalemate, and a perp could have a score of 2.1.1.0.  The losing side of any outcome gives you a -1 in that category. So 1.-2.0.1 is a win by checkmate, two losses by stalemate, and a win by material.

That way, you look at the standings and you know instantly how many checkmates, stalemates, etc a player has scored so far this tournament. And ranking players is just a matter of comparing from left to right.

Kind regards,

David

PS I edited this comment significantly after thinking for a couple hours.

After Game 11...

Carlsen 5.4

Caruana 5.6

After Game 12...

Carlsen 6

Caruana 6

Lasker and Capa were prophetic.  Draw death is here.  I'm glad you enjoy it, but not every chess player does.

What do you find un-interesting about my proposal?

Kind regards,
David

Interesting idea... but I don't see whether the change would be for better or worse

This is a silly idea because for 99.999% of players in the world, the abundance of draws is NOT a problem. 

Let's take the games of Dbergan, the originator of this "idea", as an example, and look at what percent of his games have ended in a draw...

Blitz: 587 wins, 607 losses, and 42 draws...3.4% draws

Rapid: 30 wins, 34 losses, and 2 draws...3.0% draws

David, respectfully, you are trying to change the entire game of chess simply to solve a nonexistent problem. 

I agree, Deirdre. Anytime someone starts refering to point values ALONE to determine who is winning, I roll my eyes.