"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message
ups.com...


I see several advantages of keeping the tie points one, irregardless
of how much doubling goes on.

No matter how much doubling goes on, a tie is worth one point. And the
challenging player would get no points if they tie (only the
challenged player who was doubled against.
1. Players will be more likely to double, because the risk of a tie is
less. This means if you feel you are even or better odds of winning,
you double.

Incorrect. Without doubling, if you have a 50% chance of winning
and a 50% chance of drawing, you expect to gain 1/2 point on your
opponent. With the doubling method you have proposed (doubled
drawer gets 1), you expect to gain 0 points on your opponent.


If you happen to tie, you only give up one point.
2. The player who was doubled against is more inclined to fight for
the win, instead of playing for the draw.

I don't think so. A draw for the person doubled against allows him
to gain a point on his opponent. Draws are currently very common in
high level chess even though they do *not* gain any points on the
opponent. A fact which the players would realize and, of course,
cause them to avoid doubling unless having a completely lopsided
position.

This gets larger the more
doubling going on. For example, you double from 2 to 4 points. A tie
locked in at two means 3 points more if you go for the win. This is
one more point than you get if you go with half the new amount.

The way you have described it, doubling would be rare and redoubling
extremely rare. At high level chess, games rarely swing from one side
having an overwhelming advantage to the other side having an overwhelming
advantage.

It's true that devaluing draws relative to wins would likely reduce draws.
Various alternative scoring methods have been proposed for just that
purpose. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the doubling
cube.