(Karl Thoroddsen) wrote in message . com...
Has the proposal of awarding points only for wins in tournaments even
been discussed? It would certainly lower the number of grandmaster
draws in tournaments and even if you draw in a hard fought game you
still get zero points as a point would only be given if you *defeat*
your opponent.

Comments?

Some of the famous tournaments from the 19th Century experimented
with rules that forced the replay of games that ended in draws.

In some of the Monte Carlo tournaments in the early 1900s, they
used a unique scoring system:

If the game was drawn, the players would each earn **1/4** point,
but get the chance to play a 2nd game. The 2nd game was worth just 1/2
point in total, so that if it was decisive, the winning player would
end up receiving 3/4 of a ppoint for the 2 games, while the losing
player would receive just 1/4 of a point.

Frankly, I think that a rule requiring a drawn game to be replayed
the two opponents-- albeit with rapid time controls (and with reversed
colors)--would be quite an interesting way to try to reduce draws.

The player who had White would be particularly inclined to push for
a decision, since it would be to his disadvantage to agree to an early
draw. In any case, neither player would benefit from having an
artificial "rest day". If they agreed to a draw, it would just mean
MORE (not less) work from them.

Perhaps an exception could be made for games where the draw was
agreed to only after move 50, and presumeably after a meaningful
fight. It might be OK to stipulate a number of moves, as long as the
game went past the first time control.

Alternatively, an organizer could try an incentive system, which
paid the player a bonus for each win (instead of just for total
points/ranking).