cyronix, 

Your idea is great, and was the basis of many tournaments in the late 19th century.  The problem is that tnmts need to be able to pay the rent.  The best modern solution is what we see in Mexico City:  a double round robin in which each opponent faces each other twice.  You guessed it, they play each other once with each color.

Much more important than a 3-Point score system would be to bring chess on a fair level.
So you face the same player with black and white, maybe 45 Min + 15 Sec. per Move Time Control.
And take the results of this Mini-Match as round score, (1-1 = draw, 1,5-0,5 & 2-0 firstt Player wins, 0,5-1,5 & 0-2 second player wins).
Would be much more fair, because chess as it is now is on a quite unfair level, because the white is given opening advantagee ... I really can't understand why noone wants to bring chess on a fair level neutralising the opening advantage of one player.

Markovich wrote on 09/20/07 at 16:16:36:


I too would like to know. 3-1-0 is okay with Soccer because it doesn’t end in a stalemate. Or there is no rule in soccer that the game is a draw if you do not take a shot at the goal within 50 passes. Bottom line is draw is a legitimate result in chess at par with win or loss. Trying to tinker with it may not be a great idea.

I fully agree with S_F's last lines. To attract larger audiences only rapid games are useful; the FIDE-policy on classic chess has had zero impact.
And in rapid games the draw problem does not really exist. That ABC-scenario still happens in WCh and EUch tournaments occasionally. In my opinion the 3-1-0 scoring system is a solution for a non-existing problem.

chk wrote on 09/19/07 at 11:02:18:


I concur that traditional match play between World Champion and candidate is the approved standard for deciding World Championship.

I don´t see that the 3 points have any impact on team championships, but didn´t consider this in my suggestion.

Distortions as an early draw or deliberate loss are possible with the old system too; yet I doubt that "losing 1st to win" will become an established strategy of professional players.

In soccer the 3-1-0 didn´t alter the game completely; to my knowledge (german bundesliga) the champion always would have won using 3-1-0 or 2-1-0, but I´m not sure. A point is still better than no point, and it makes perfect sense to draw if nothing else can be achived. In general the standing should follow the strength of the players, so it is no surprise that the best players win with either system.

Yet I believe that there would be less "GM draws" after 15 moves of theory, and the last round should be more exciting as more players might have a chance for moving up on the scoreboard in the last round.

Regards, Lou

This could work, but it should be combined with match play for important events, e.g.:

- World championships, candidates, etc. In my opinion (for reasons already discussed in this forum) match play looks best here. But if the WCh is to decided in events like San Luis or Mexico, then today's 2 draws = 1 win looks best to me. The players may have all the quick draws in the world if they wish to; it is all part of their strategy to endure such a tournament. I think most serious chess fans appreciate this and wouldn't want to sacrifice finding out who the 'true' champion is, in order to add more excitement in the tournament (but again: match play seems best for a WCh).

- Team championships with many chessboards (8-12 boards): Again I'd rather keep the old system (i.e. 2 draws = 1 win for the team; otherwise an upset win by an otherwise 'underperforming' team may lead to the delegation of another more 'worthy' team).

(edit)
- Even for 5 round swiss tournaments there may be some distortions, e.g. in the example you give above, player C draws or loses on round 1 on purpose so to then get paired with lesser opponents and do a 4/4.

Hi,

This deals with the idea of altering the score as in soccer with 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for loss in chess tournaments instead of the present 1 / 0,5 / 0 rule.

I come to the conclusion that this would benefit the popularity (not the quality) of chess at all levels, because it makes early draws less attractive. An common met example:

At a weekend 5 round swiss tournament we have the following results after round 4:

Player A: 3 win, 1 draw
Player B: 3 win, 1 draw
Player C: 3 win, 1 loss

A and B lead the tourney before C. They are paired for the last round.

Under present system they have 3,5 points and it is likely that their refined score will be better than that of player C, even if he wins. So why not take a draw to cash in on rank 1 and 2?

With 3-point-ruling A and B have 10 points, C trails behind with 9 points. Taking a draw could mean that A and B fall back to rank 2 and 3, because they would reach 11 points, whereas C finishes with 12 points if he wins his final match. So it might be a better idea for A and B to try to win the game.

As I see it early GM-draws quite often happen because "the glass is half filled" for both players, if they have the choice of making the draw or play for a win in a double-edged position. With the proposed change the glass is only filled wit 1/3, so you have more to win (and less to lose) if you try to go for a win.

What is your opinion? Do you have experience with tournaments under the 3-points-rule, are they legal according to FIDE regulations?

Regards, Lou