Hi
I was just wondering how they decided on three points for a win and one for a draw. Isn't it usually one point for a win and half a point for a draw? Three points may be common, I really don't know. I noticed one affect of it in one of my tournaments though. In the August 2008 Grand Split Three Seven 1,which is still in progress, I could miss the playoff without losing a single game. I even lucked into a win against the player who can pull past me. Losing two points for my three draws, instead of a half point, makes this possible. I don't mind though. I imagine it has/will favor me too. I was just wondering if anyone else has noticed this. If this has come up before, I would be glad to know what was said.
Your thoughts ...
I thought about it some more. Even in the other format, 3 draws would be losing 1 1/2 points, and a single loss would be losing 1 point. It would be much closer though. The real difference would be in two draws versus a win and a loss. Two draws = 1 point (standard) or 2 points (redhotpawn)
Win and loss = 1 point and 0 points (standard) or 3 points and 0 points (redhotpawn)
1 (standard 2 draws) = 1 (redhotpawn 2 draws) comparing the two and 2 (standard win and loss) = 3 (redhotpawn win and loss) in the other.
Assuming that standard awards 1/2 for a draw and 1 for a win.
It's only minorly significant, but it does make a difference.
It's to encourage players to always go for the win. The traditional scoring system has been under fire as of late in the chess community. The 2008 Spice Cup is a recent example. 60% of the games played resulted in a draw and four players tied for the championship with 5.5 points each. It's a popular opinion that scoring three points for a win would increase public interest in tournaments as there would be a lesser number of draws.
I remember reading Petrosian never did well in tournaments because of all the draws. Even with the old system drawing too much hurt him. (His style was more suited for match play.) It's really interesting after all these years they would do that. Sometimes you just can't win. If you take too many chances you lose more than necessary. If you don't take those exact risks, you end up not beating players of equal or greater strength. It's kind of like lighting a match under the players , for better or worse. 🙂
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsSure. First of all you struggle for the initiative. A slight change in the dynamics may affect the potential and then you can lose the initiative without being able even to explain rationally the reason why. If you refuse to lose it because you "must play for a win" and therefore try to force the issue, then the dynamic potential of your position is steamed away and you remain unable to face a sound counterattack; it seems that the quality of the equalibrium is too much affected due to this russian roulette like approach.
I remember reading Petrosian never did well in tournaments because of all the draws. Even with the old system drawing too much hurt him. (His style was more suited for match play.) It's really interesting after all these years they would do that. Sometimes you just can't win. If you take too many chances you lose more than necessary. If you ...[text shortened]... r strength. It's kind of like lighting a match under the players , for better or worse. 🙂
I wonder if Russ would be open to the idea of creating a tourny with the traditional scoring system. There's something to be said for the strategy of playing for a draw. Of cousre maybe RHP already tried this formula before and nobody liked it. I'm relatively new here so I wouldn't know.
Originally posted by KneeCapsI am new also and I don't know, but anyway I am indifferent to this: I have no time to participate in a RHP tournament, and on the other hand if I did I would go for a draw whenever I could not find a way to win. I don't use to play "for a win" although a win is the best result;
I wonder if Russ would be open to the idea of creating a tourny with the traditional scoring system. There's something to be said for the strategy of playing for a draw. Of cousre maybe RHP already tried this formula before and nobody liked it. I'm relatively new here so I wouldn't know.
Originally posted by tamuziFootball used to have a 2-1-0 points system and was also the most popular sport back then.The change to 3-1-0 system had nothing to do with that and,imo,has not made the sport more attractive.I doubt such a system in chess will entice players to play more agressively.
Futbol is a 3-1-0 system too and its the most popular sport in the world.
Changing chess to the same system just sets chess up to achieve its spot of dominance.
Though it will probably reduce short draws which is a good thing 🙂