- 21 Feb '14 16:19Any chance the scoring could be 2 points for a win, 1 point for a draw?

While three points for a win is an incentive to play for a win, it is also an incentive for two players to agree to each resign one game rather than agree to two draws when both games between them are heading for a draw.

In the above scenario both players walk away with three (3) points for their win/loss rather than two (2) points for their draw/draw. - 21 Feb '14 16:44

lol, I would make sure my opponent resign one game first. ðŸ˜‰*Originally posted by Phillidor284***Any chance the scoring could be 2 points for a win, 1 point for a draw?**

While three points for a win is an incentive to play for a win, it is also an incentive for two players to agree to each resign one game rather than agree to two draws when both games between them are heading for a draw.

In the above scenario both players walk away with three (3) points for their win/loss rather than two (2) points for their draw/draw. - 07 Mar '14 21:57

This is quite correct. The incentives are indeed 'corrupting'. I freely admit that, in past Championships (ie the only two I've entered), I've agreed deals for two draws by 'winning' one and 'losing' the other. An element of trust is required. But it's not great. And I'm not the only one to recognise this flaw in the 3-1-0 model*Originally posted by Phillidor284***Any chance the scoring could be 2 points for a win, 1 point for a draw?**

While three points for a win is an incentive to play for a win, it is also an incentive for two players to agree to each resign one game rather than agree to two draws when both games between them are heading for a draw.

In the above scenario both players walk away with three (3) points for their win/loss rather than two (2) points for their draw/draw. - 09 May '14 14:41

217 entrees in less then 24 Hrs. So far.*Originally posted by Ponderable***The tournament is open now**

For future reference:

Tournament 19582