Uscf

Originally posted by nimzo5
If two players want to draw they can easily "arrange" to play something known to be drawish or even known to be a forced repetition etc.

no way to stop it.

See the top guys playing the Lasker defense lately in Sofia rules events.

I'm starting to think that 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw might indeed be an idea worth pursuing. After all, we all play here under such a system. If we really objected to it, we'd play our games elsewhere, wouldn't we?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Interesting point. What do you propose to stop these 'team tactics'?

Danged if I know!!

In a real world, I don't see any way that it could be done. Heck, even in the tournaments where it's all but certain that such collusion has taken place, proving it to a standard that any court would accept would be nearly impossible.

Human nature being what it is, I suppose we are just stuck with problems like this.

regards,

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm starting to think that 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw might indeed be an idea worth pursuing. After all, we all play here under such a system.

Do we?

At any rate, it would never work OTB. You'd get the usual (and valid) objection that a hard-fought defense is as worthwhile as a tenacious but ineffective offense.

Perhaps the solution is to combine both suggestions. You get 3 points for a win, 1 1/2 points for a draw of thirty or more moves, and 1 for a draw less than 30 moves.

Richard

Originally posted by RBHILL
With a win = 2 points and draw is 1 piont.

What are your thoughts on having wins be 3 points like on this site.

I had look at one of my chess instutors tournaments and he was in a 5 way tie for first. and if they had 3 pionts for a win he would have place second all by himself with one person winning the tournament. And also i would think that less peop ...[text shortened]... ident about this when she comes to my chess club next month. or are most people about tradition?

My opinion on this is all over the map, and changes almost daily, but here is one scenario that makes me still favor the current system:

It's a local swiss system tournament with 32 players in one section.

After two rounds, the top seed wins his first round, but is upset the second round, and has 1 point for his one win.

After two rounds, the bottom seed has fought tenaciously and has secured two draws against higher-rated opposition, for 1 point total.

In the above situation, while the scores are equal, I am more impressed with the performance of the lower-rated player. If wins were 3 points, the higher-seeded player would be ahead, even though his performance is lower than I would expect, and is (in my opinion) far less respectable than the bottom guy nicking higher rated players for draws.

I certainly see the appeal for changing the points system in that it makes tiebreaks easier for larger tournaments with fewer rounds where an absolute winner is hard to accomplish, but the current system of assigning 1 point per game and allowing the two players to determine how it will be allocated does have its logic.

I know it has nothing to do with the USCF but the London Chess Classic give 3 pionts for a win and 1 for a draw.

Originally posted by nimzo5
The Lasker defense of the QGD.

Lol the deciding game of the last World Championship was a win for Anand (as black) in the Lasker.