A common complaint in GM, especially top tier GM tournaments, is the number of short draws.
One way around this has simply been to ban draw offers - unless an arbiter agrees there's no point playing on. This is the Sofia rule. It's not universally popular although I personally don't mind it. Another suggested way is to move chess to a football-like scoring system as an incentive to increase competitiveness - ie 3 points for a win, but only 1 for a draw - although this has never been tried, I believe.
HOWEVER!! I believe I have just invented a third system, which is surely much better than the other two. Here is my new way to solve this problem.
First, let's suppose the playing time for a game is 6 hours - but the players finish after 1 hour. Under my new rule, another game would then start, with swapped colours and a playing time of 5 hours. This would continue until a game with less time than half an hour each was reached. The final score of the days play would be fractional - so let's say you won one and drew one, you'd get 0.75, your opponent 0.25.
What does everyone think? Shall I write to Kirsan?
The reason they take early draws is because they play many games in a tournament and therefore try to focus their energy on games where it matters. I do not think that system you suggest will be any more popular.. in fact, if there was a change I would prefer the 3-1-0 point system - just forbidding it is dumb.
I am not totally against agreed draws since I respect those choices of tournament players. It might be boring, but the players might really want a draw and it should be allowed for them to take it if they want. If anything, increase the reward for a draw (3-1-0) so that there is a good reason to risk a little. And, if they still really want to draw because they are tired or for whatever reason, they are allowed to.
Originally posted by Jusuh3-1-0 penalises *all* draws, not just short draws. This is not the aim and hence it isn't appropriate. Why penalise someone who plays for 6 hours but can do no more than draw?
3-1-0 sounds good. that would encourage sharp play and also reward uncompromising players.
Also, supposing 3 club mates play each other in a tournament and all games are draws. It would benefit them if they each took a win and loss, rather than two draws. How would you prevent this happening?
My preference is for no draw offers prior to a given move, e.g. move 40, but I'm not entirely sure what this figure should be.
I don't like 3-1-0 because I don't think it's meritocratic. It would mean Topalov would win all tournaments, whilst Kramnik and Leko never would - even if they got higher Elo ratings and average score per game. People might actually lose rating points from tournaments they won - that kind of thing.
Originally posted by TommyCYour solution has a simple problem. the players will simply slow down by agreement and use most of their time. If one long game is exhausting, imagine what 3 or four could do.
A common complaint in GM, especially top tier GM tournaments, is the number of short draws.
One way around this has simply been to ban draw offers - unless an arbiter agrees there's no point playing on. This is the Sofia rule. It's not universally popular although I personally don't mind it. Another suggested way is to move chess to a football-like scoring ...[text shortened]... you'd get 0.75, your opponent 0.25.
What does everyone think? Shall I write to Kirsan?
Originally posted by UndeadNightOrcThough you do get some:
One solution proposed by the ACP was to allow draws only after a certain number of moves, say 20 moves or so.
Before 20 moves there aren't that many positions that merits a draw.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1448709
Incidentally, that was from a tournament with a 'no quick draws' rule in place.
Originally posted by VarenkaI don't see it penalising draws. I see it rewarding wins. Why does one even play chess if he isnt trying to win?
3-1-0 penalises *all* draws, not just short draws. This is not the aim and hence it isn't appropriate. Why penalise someone who plays for 6 hours but can do no more than draw?
Also, supposing 3 club mates play each other in a tournament and all games are draws. It would benefit them if they each took a win and loss, rather than two draws. How would yo ...[text shortened]... ers prior to a given move, e.g. move 40, but I'm not entirely sure what this figure should be.
Originally posted by zebanoBut any system is open to behind the scenes agreements.
Your solution has a simple problem. the players will simply slow down by agreement and use most of their time. If one long game is exhausting, imagine what 3 or four could do.
Do you think we don't have behind the scenes agreed draws now?
And this system would make such agreements utterly transparent:
1.d4: clock time, 3h:00 d5 clock time 3h:00 2. Nf3 1h:20 2. Nf6 1h:19...
- would be equivalent to game fixing, and thus cheating.
Originally posted by JusuhThe Swiss System seems to encourage draws - especially with the Fritzed out openings, 3-1-0 would work.
I don't see it penalising draws. I see it rewarding wins. Why does one even play chess if he isnt trying to win?
Or, similar to Tommy's idea, what if, if a draw is reached, players playoff 2 more games to give better chances for a decisive result - and if one is reached only that result counts.
Originally posted by JusuhBut to reward a win more, a draw has to be penlised more. Can't have one without the other.
I don't see it penalising draws. I see it rewarding wins. Why does one even play chess if he isnt trying to win?
I agree that we're trying to discourage short draws without a fight. But what about two players, both trying to win, and after many hours only having their kings left... are you going to score them the same as two players agreeing a draw after 5 mins of play? It may well be that the perfect game of chess is a draw.
Originally posted by TommyCAs already mentioned, all the players have to do is take their time. If the max game length is 6 hours and they can sense a short draw coming, they can simply slow down their play and finish well beyond the 1 hour you propose.
Btw, my system has teh advantage that
(1) you can agree a draw whenever a draw position is reached
(2) it does not unfairly penalise any kind of draw - short or hard-fought
which is better than its rivals, imo.
Personally I would like to play in this kind of system.