People complain about draws in top level tournaments actually the only
time draws bother people is when they come at the end of a tournament.
Every sporting event should end with an exciting climax and that
requires win and losses not draws. Sure, there are exciting draws but
they happen very rarely in over the board play. You can't blame
chess professionals for the draws because they have to put their
financial interests ahead of playing exciting chess if they are to
survive as professionals.

The answer is to pay for wins in the last two games of a tournament. Of
course, everyone would have to get both colors in the last two games.
The seeding of the tournament should have the best players playing each
other at the end. (They shouldn't play the same person twice in the
last two games but that couldn't happen anyway.)

If a player knows that, they will get (pick an amount) $10,000 for a
win they are probably going to go for it especially if they have white.
Their opponent may play for a draw but they may be too cautiously and
lose or if their opponent makes and mistake then they will most likely
turn the tables and go for winning the $10000 themselves. Neither
player will just give up because they have at least rating points to
lose but people who run tournaments will have to be on guard against
collusion.

wrote in message
oups.com...
People complain about draws in top level tournaments actually the only
time draws bother people is when they come at the end of a tournament.
Every sporting event should end with an exciting climax and that
requires win and losses not draws. Sure, there are exciting draws but
they happen very rarely in over the board play. You can't blame
chess professionals for the draws because they have to put their
financial interests ahead of playing exciting chess if they are to
survive as professionals.

The answer is to pay for wins in the last two games of a tournament. Of
course, everyone would have to get both colors in the last two games.
The seeding of the tournament should have the best players playing each
other at the end. (They shouldn't play the same person twice in the
last two games but that couldn't happen anyway.)

Nobody likes my idea of awarding 1.5 points for a win and 1 point for a draw
and zero points for losing. This would shake up pre-arranged draws by
offering cheaters less points than they could have scored otherwise, and
also award players going for a win.

Its not as if there is any strict mathematical relationship in the present
system, with 0.5 point for draw being half-as-good as 1 point for a win.
This system is as seemingly arbitrary as any other, and does not effect
ratings, only event management practice.

If anyone really wanted to eliminate short-draws, or not reward them as if
it were a hard fought and contested game, they would change the basis so
that winning rewarded the winner with more than double the score for a draw.

Much GM chess these days rewards the drawish player who scores 10 draws from
a tournament in the same way as someone who scores 5 wins. If we are happy
with drawish chess we will continue the way we are.

Phil Innes

If a player knows that, they will get (pick an amount) $10,000 for a
win they are probably going to go for it especially if they have white.
Their opponent may play for a draw but they may be too cautiously and
lose or if their opponent makes and mistake then they will most likely
turn the tables and go for winning the $10000 themselves. Neither
player will just give up because they have at least rating points to
lose but people who run tournaments will have to be on guard against
collusion.

"Chess One" writes:


Its not as if there is any strict mathematical relationship in the present
system, with 0.5 point for draw being half-as-good as 1 point for a win.

Ah, but there is. I admit that it's not appreciated by the Cornish
school of mathematicians - but it's there.

This system is as seemingly arbitrary as any other, and does not effect
ratings, only event management practice.

Not at all. It may actually *be* arbitrary, but it is seemingly perfect.


If anyone really wanted to eliminate short-draws, or not reward them as if
it were a hard fought and contested game, they would change the basis so
that winning rewarded the winner with more than double the score for a draw.

Any draw...or just short draws?



Much GM chess these days rewards the drawish player who scores 10 draws from
a tournament in the same way as someone who scores 5 wins. If we are happy
with drawish chess we will continue the way we are.

On the other hand, if we are unhappy with drawish chess there are any
number of possibilities to chose from. The trick is in discarding the
hair-brained ones and constructing an alternative which is actually
better than the current system.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

"Those who refuse to do arithmetic are condemned to talking nonsense." -
Marvin Minsky.

"Tom Martinak" writes:

Nobody likes my idea of awarding 1.5 points for a win and 1 point for a draw
and zero points for losing. This would shake up pre-arranged draws by
offering cheaters less points than they could have scored otherwise, and
also award players going for a win.

You must have mis-wrote your values. As stated you would be encouraging
draws because the players would receive 1 point each for a total of 2,
while with a win-loss they would only get a total of 1.5.

- Tom Martinak


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
"Chess One" writes:


Its not as if there is any strict mathematical relationship in the
present
system, with 0.5 point for draw being half-as-good as 1 point for a win.

Ah, but there is. I admit that it's not appreciated by the Cornish
school of mathematicians - but it's there.

This system is as seemingly arbitrary as any other, and does not effect
ratings, only event management practice.

Not at all. It may actually *be* arbitrary, but it is seemingly perfect.

Define "perfect"



If anyone really wanted to eliminate short-draws, or not reward them as
if
it were a hard fought and contested game, they would change the basis so
that winning rewarded the winner with more than double the score for a
draw.

Any draw...or just short draws?

Point-splitting encourages short and long draws.

"David Kane" writes:

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
"Chess One" writes:


Its not as if there is any strict mathematical relationship in the
present
system, with 0.5 point for draw being half-as-good as 1 point for a win.

Ah, but there is. I admit that it's not appreciated by the Cornish
school of mathematicians - but it's there.

This system is as seemingly arbitrary as any other, and does not effect
ratings, only event management practice.

Not at all. It may actually *be* arbitrary, but it is seemingly perfect.

Define "perfect"


*seemingly* perfect.




If anyone really wanted to eliminate short-draws, or not reward them as
if
it were a hard fought and contested game, they would change the basis so
that winning rewarded the winner with more than double the score for a
draw.

Any draw...or just short draws?

Point-splitting encourages short and long draws.


Do you want to eliminate *only* short draws, or do you want to also
eliminate or penalize hard fought and contested draws?


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

In the old days after a draw it was necessary
to play another game. a draw was accepted
only after two draws.

Today life goes faster hence we could make
players, after a draw, to play blitz until one wins.
Black would choose any time limit from 5 to 10
minutes, and would play white. But if the
first blitz game ended in a draw, then the
other player would choose the time limit
(and would play white this time). They would
alternate this way until a conclusive result.

This way the viewers and the public would
have extra fun.

Wlod

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:sbzkg.2804$YI2.927@trnddc01...

wrote in message
oups.com...
People complain about draws in top level tournaments actually the only
time draws bother people is when they come at the end of a tournament.
Every sporting event should end with an exciting climax and that
requires win and losses not draws. Sure, there are exciting draws but
they happen very rarely in over the board play. You can't blame
chess professionals for the draws because they have to put their
financial interests ahead of playing exciting chess if they are to
survive as professionals.

The answer is to pay for wins in the last two games of a tournament. Of
course, everyone would have to get both colors in the last two games.
The seeding of the tournament should have the best players playing each
other at the end. (They shouldn't play the same person twice in the
last two games but that couldn't happen anyway.)

Nobody likes my idea of awarding 1.5 points for a win and 1 point for a
draw

And they shouldn't! Since it makes no sense at all - but if I had written
2.5 pts for a win, and 1 point for a draw... PI

and zero points for losing. This would shake up pre-arranged draws by
offering cheaters less points than they could have scored otherwise, and
also award players going for a win.

Its not as if there is any strict mathematical relationship in the present
system, with 0.5 point for draw being half-as-good as 1 point for a win.
This system is as seemingly arbitrary as any other, and does not effect
ratings, only event management practice.

If anyone really wanted to eliminate short-draws, or not reward them as if
it were a hard fought and contested game, they would change the basis so
that winning rewarded the winner with more than double the score for a
draw.

Much GM chess these days rewards the drawish player who scores 10 draws
from a tournament in the same way as someone who scores 5 wins. If we are
happy with drawish chess we will continue the way we are.

Phil Innes

If a player knows that, they will get (pick an amount) $10,000 for a
win they are probably going to go for it especially if they have white.
Their opponent may play for a draw but they may be too cautiously and
lose or if their opponent makes and mistake then they will most likely
turn the tables and go for winning the $10000 themselves. Neither
player will just give up because they have at least rating points to
lose but people who run tournaments will have to be on guard against
collusion.

Points make no sense as the problem is because of draws at the end of a
tournment. Even if you give .1 points for a draw and that's what it
takes to win a tournment then one would be a fool not to play for or
agree upon a draw.

wrote in message
ups.com...

The problem is that the very existence of the ability to "agree to a
draw" is an absurd concept for a professional sport. It means that at
any point in the game (or even before!) the competitors can decide not
to engage any further, get up and leave. In which case they get the
same reward as a hard fought attempt to win, that ends in a tie. The
ultimate solution is to change the rules of the game so that more
decisive possibilities exist, and the only draws are those that occur
through play.

I agree its a problem.

From players point of view, they often complain of having to play too much
high level chess too quickly - Adorjan has said that playing conditions are
often terrible and not conducive to good play - and recently I note that
Timman admitted in NiC that he offered his opponent a very quick round 4
draw while in a Swedish tournament, 'because he needed a rest day'.

Solutions such as 'no draw agreements before move 20' don't work because the
players can still conspire to achieve a 3-fold repetition, and therefore no
draw offer is made, as such, and either player can simply claim a draw.

I think the best resolution is to change the score for draws, so that a draw
is not = to 1/2 a win.

If a loss = 0 points, a draw = 1 point, then a win = 2.5 or [even 3 points],
will reward players fighting out their games, rather than averaging their
scores by drawing them.

Phil Innes