(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?

The nature of the game just doesn't allow for it. Like it or not,
chess is a drawish game, at least at the GM level. In shogi title
matches (5 or 7 games), draws don't count in scoring and are replayed
(with the exception, I think, of the Meijin match, where draws count
for 1/2 point. Not sure why that match is an exception. Just ancient
tradition maybe). Draws are so rare that they're isn't a problem of
interminable matches. I'm not sure how draws are counted in the
qualifying tournaments, but I suspect they're just replayed as well.

In chess, as history has shown, this just isn't practical. The only
solution to the high percentage of draws at the top level is, in my
opinion, shorter time controls. To hell with the "quality" of the
games. To hell with who would have won at a slower time control.
Give me results!

(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).

"Chiaromondo" wrote in message ...
It's one point from a win and minus one point from a lose. That is the same
as getting zero from a lose and one from a draw and two from a win, that is
the same as getting zero from a draw, half a point from a draw and one point
from a win. They used to count only wins at older WC matches so that the
winning score couldn't be reached by making draws; they gave up of that when
Kasparov's WC match vs. Korchnoi lasted 48 games and it was still not at six
wins (Korchnoi had five points and Lasker had just won two games in a row to
make it 5-3).

I assume that you are referring to some fantasy chess World
Championship??

Of course, given the playing styles of Lasker and Korchnoi, who are
both noted for their fighting chess, I'm sure that it would have been
quite a match.

"Karl Thoroddsen" wrote in message
om...
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.

Here's the problem. Bill plays Joe and Dick play Tom. Bill wins, Dick and
Tom draw. Joe gets 0 points - OK. Dick and Tom get 0 points, but they each
played better than Joe. Your solution would only work if you subtracted
points for losing. But that leaves us where we started. Dick and Tom would
be in between, just like the way they count it today.

"bruno de baenst" wrote in message
...
For in tournaments a system 3 for win 1 for draw 0 for loss has some
advantages tough, but of course then you have the problem that some
fantastic games can also end in draw, but this can happen in football too
and there they also use this system.

Yes, that basically solves the problem. Today, if I draw 3 games, I tie
somone with a win, a draw, and a loss. The 3 point system puts the emphasis
on trying to win, even at the risk of a loss. Now someone with 3 draws has
3 points, and someone with 1 win and 1 loss and 1 draw has 4 points.

In article ,
"jeffc" wrote:

"bruno de baenst" wrote in message
...
For in tournaments a system 3 for win 1 for draw 0 for loss has some
advantages tough, but of course then you have the problem that some
fantastic games can also end in draw, but this can happen in football too
and there they also use this system.

Yes, that basically solves the problem. Today, if I draw 3 games, I tie
somone with a win, a draw, and a loss. The 3 point system puts the emphasis
on trying to win, even at the risk of a loss. Now someone with 3 draws has
3 points, and someone with 1 win and 1 loss and 1 draw has 4 points.


No, it doesn't solve the problem, because if you end up with a position
that is clearly drawn, the players are better off on average flipping a
coin to decide who resigns. The expected value of the coin flip strategy
is 1.5 points, while the expected value of the draw is 1 point. The
smart players flip the coin.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article , bruno de
baenst writes
No, it doesn't solve the problem, because if you end up with a position
that is clearly drawn, the players are better off on average flipping a
coin to decide who resigns. The expected value of the coin flip strategy
is 1.5 points, while the expected value of the draw is 1 point. The
smart players flip the coin.

--Harold Buck

In theory this is true, but I really don't think any player would let his
hard fought drawn game be decided by a coin flip and let himself lose on
purpose just for the sake of honour. First of all this is just cheating and
second what if the player who loses coin flip just doesn't resign but plays
on.
And when exactly would they flip the coin? They can't during the game so
they would have to do it before game starts which would give the player who
loses coin flip even more reasons to play for win.

It would be the same as a football game where after 90 minutes it is 3-3 and
then the trainers would flip a coin and the loser has to score an own goal.
This would also give an expected value of 1,5 point which is better than 1
point but still I have never seen this happen.

Just make what's now a draw a win for black (or sometimes white). This
would change the way the game is played, but isn't that the idea?

--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)

It is completely straightforward; 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw.
How hard is that?

I fail to see just what is the big deal with draws. It is part of the
game...and has been around for a lot longer than all of the people currently
alive. Sheesh! Get over this "thing" about draws being arranged or a lack of
a "fighting spirit." If you want that...then find some other game to get
interested and quit trying to make chess something it isn't. Along with
that...this idea that chess is "played out"...that may be true for some
super grandmasters but it hardly applies to the average player that enjoys
the challenge of the game. IF, playing against a computer is a person's
choice, and not playing against another human....or matching one chess
engine against another....then you are missing out on the thrill of the
game...so play some nintendo or such game.
"bruno de baenst" wrote in message
...
No, it doesn't solve the problem, because if you end up with a position
that is clearly drawn, the players are better off on average flipping a
coin to decide who resigns. The expected value of the coin flip strategy
is 1.5 points, while the expected value of the draw is 1 point. The
smart players flip the coin.

--Harold Buck

In theory this is true, but I really don't think any player would let his
hard fought drawn game be decided by a coin flip and let himself lose on
purpose just for the sake of honour. First of all this is just cheating
and
second what if the player who loses coin flip just doesn't resign but
plays
on.
And when exactly would they flip the coin? They can't during the game so
they would have to do it before game starts which would give the player
who
loses coin flip even more reasons to play for win.

It would be the same as a football game where after 90 minutes it is 3-3
and
then the trainers would flip a coin and the loser has to score an own
goal.
This would also give an expected value of 1,5 point which is better than 1
point but still I have never seen this happen.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 29/07/2004

In article , Alan
OBrien writes

It is completely straightforward; 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw.
How hard is that?

It's straightforward but its workability as a solution isn't. One
argument against it is completely straightforward too - it would tempt
some players to share out wins. This is because the total number of
points per game would be more for a won game than for a draw.

My suggested solution doesn't have this problem. It would make many
games much more of a battle. I only thought of it recently, but the more
I think about it, the more I like it. Problem with draws? Just get rid
of them.

--
banana