I would like to propose the following change that would primarily affect tournament play.

Under current rhp practice, when two players split their games, they are either both advanced to the next level or given two more games against each other (depending on what stage the tournament is in). This is cumbersome and inconclusive - especially in the later stages of a tourney.

Instead of two new games, I propose one more game - a third game as a tie breaker. Whichever player got his/her victory (in the previous 2 games) in the fewest moves - is allowed to choose colors for Game 3.

What is the consensus view on this?
CC

One of each colour has always been fine and I see no reason to discontinue this, it's plain fairer playing both colours...also, I have a tournament final ongoing and neither player has won a game after a number of attempts, how do you fairly play one colour after two and more draws in a final ?
However, I can see the point in trying to reduce games, especially after the six draws I'm experiencing in that one tourney.. I just can't see a viable alternative to this, other than continuing to play both colours until one of us achieves the better result...

I have a couple of multiple-tiebreaker rounds going as well. There's another possibility, allow no more than two final tiebreaker rounds, then award joint wins to both players. Doesn't do anything for earlier rounds though.

Making the number of moves play such a huge factor would encourage players to prolong lost games until checkmate. Depending on the time controls, that could make tournaments last much longer than they do right now instead of speeding things up.

Originally posted by CamelClutch
Instead of two new games, I propose one more game - a third game as a tie breaker. Whichever player got his/her victory (in the previous 2 games) in the fewest moves - is allowed to choose colors for Game 3.

>Deciding things on which player won the previous game in the fewest moves would put someone like me at a disadvantage because I play openings that develop slowly, thus making games a bit longer. I play all games to win and I don't care how many moves it takes. A win is a win is a win. Nothing else matters, not how fast I get it.
>Generally, I will play the game right from the 1st move with the thought in mind of whether or not my move gives me a good endgame. A lot of my games don't get that far because of a tactical shot, but I'm always looking for a favorable endgame and that prolongs many games.
>That's just my style. I'm a counter-attacker, and I'm comfortable playing like that.
>I don't mind playing extra games to decide a tie, because I feel the tournament should be won by winning games, not by winning them quickly. If I win quickly or slowly, that's irrelevant. It's only winning that matters, not how many moves it takes.
>In addition, rewarding the player who wins most quickly only forces players never to resign a clearly lost position.