@ koko48 :

When a commentator resorts to insults ("wordy drivel", "spam and mindless fluff", "exposed as a liar and a fraud", "you're intellectually outgunned", "Debating you is like a heavyweight fighting a flyweight, or a GM playing a 'C' player", "if you argue with me again just for the sake of argument (...), I'll take you apart at the joints"), one thing is clear, and that is that he has completely run out of arguments (...in fact, you never stated any real argument, so it is in fact even worse than that...).

Everyone can see for himself that you didn't demonstrate anything anywhere, and that, furthermore, you even lied (notably about the fact that there weren't any comparatively weaker grandmasters in the "3 - 1" tournaments), having no coherent arguments to state.

So everyone can judge by himself... and I don't think that you will find many persons to follow you with such arguments...

In fact, you have simply showed what you are : a person that resorts to lies and insults when he is completely out of arguments... you really don't show yourself in a very favorable light indeed !...

More wordy drivel, that's all we ever get from you on these threads...A lot of words, and no substance

You asked me for a demonstration of the effects of football scoring, then when I provide it you don't even look at it...Instead you respond with more paragraphs of spam and mindless fluff...Because you've been proven wrong, and exposed as a liar and a fraud when you claimed you "followed EVERY ONE of the top-level tournaments using this 3 - 1 scoring system"

My suggestion: Don't pick a fight with someone when you're intellectually outgunned. Debating you is like a heavyweight fighting a flyweight, or a GM playing a 'C' player...and if you argue with me again just for the sake of argument (as you've done more than once), I'll take you apart at the joints...Again

@ koko48 :

I didn't see your last post until now, so I didn't answer it.

I don't think it is very interesting to check the details of all these past editions of the London Chess Classic. I suppose that, as for the 2010 London Chess Classic, Short, McShane and Howell where under 2700 (and probably under 2650, for some of them), so this musn't change what I said before.

As for the rest, you still don't demonstrate ANYTHING in terms of numbers.

And it is irrelevant to affirm that the games where interesting :

On the one hand, when you mix grandmasters with very different levels, as in the 2010 London Chess Classic (and I suppose the level difference was approximately the same in the 2009 and 2011 tournaments), there always are less draws.

And, on the other hand, if you simply take, for example, the very recent Tata Steel tournament (in which there were grandmasters of rather different levels, even if the difference wasn't as important as in the 2010 London Chess Classic, for example), you can see for yourself that there were very few short draws (I can't say exactly how much, because, for me, short draws are not things that bother me at all, so I don't count them). And the scoring was the traditional "1 - 1/2" scoring.

In particular, it is one more time rather funny, because you say, about the "3 - 1" scoring system : "There are no short draws among the leaders in the last rounds, as are commonplace under traditional scoring". And, in the last edition of Tata Steel, on the last round, there were only 2 draws out of 7 games, these draws being respectively 53 and 63 moves long ! Not exactly what I would call short draws !!!

So, clearly, it is quite possible, in tournaments with traditional scoring, to have a VERY animated last round (...and the 2017 Tata Steel tournament is simply the last top-level tournament, so you can't say that I deliberately chose this tournament because the results suit me particularly well...). The last round of this last edition of the Tata Steel tournament is in fact the exact opposite of your hypothesis : a PARTICULARLY animated last round (...and, by the way, the last round of the 2010 London Chess Classic that you cite as an example was rather the contrary, with 3 draws out of 4 games in its last round...).

In fact, what stands to reason is that, if the players play in a more "win-oriented" manner, it will have statistical consequences. And these statistical elements are the ONLY elements that can prove that the "3 - 1" scoring system really changes anything, when it is implemented in a tournament. And the other arguments don't prove anything at all...


As for that : "You will also notice that in both the 2009 and 2011 editions, at least three or four players had a chance to win the tournament, or tie for first, going into the last round....Another benefit of football scoring", I simply don't agree that, if it is true that the "3 - 1" scoring system has this effect, it is a positive effect : I don't see at all why, if a player completely dominates a tournament, it would be a problem if he wins the tournament in advance. If he is clearly better, it is normal that he wins the tournament in advance, and with a significant margin, and I don't see at all why it would be a good thing to avoid this. The "problem" is with the other players that don't play sufficiently well, and not with the rules !

@ koko48 :

- "If you need a demonstration (...) take a look at the 2010 London Chess Classic"

You cite only one tournament, so this simply doesn't have any significance.

I remind you what I said : "(...) in SEVERAL of these "3 - 1" tournaments (...)". I didn't say : "(...) in ALL of these "3 - 1" tournaments (...)". So it is completely illogical to answer with one isolated tournament.


And, furthermore, what you affirm (one more time...) is false !!!

This is what you said :



« "I have followed EVERY ONE of the top-level tournaments using this 3 - 1 scoring system"

No you have not, and that much is clear. It's made even clearer by your following statement:

"in several of these '3 - 1' tournaments, there were several comparatively weaker grandmasters"

No, that had nothing to do with it. And if you really had "followed EVERY ONE of the top-level tournaments using this 3 - 1 scoring system" - as you spuriously claimed - you would know that

The London Chess Classic under the football scoring, was an elite eight player field. If you need a demonstration -(since you obviously won't look it up for yourself) take a look at the 2010 London Chess Classic: (...) The field was Carlsen, McShane, Anand, Kramnik, Nakamura, Adams, Howell, and Short

Howell may have been the lowest rated GM in that field, but there were no easy players... »



In the 2010 London Chess Classic, there were two 2800+ players (Anand - 2804 - and Carlsen - 2802) ; at the other end, there were Short (2680), McShane (2645), and Howell (2611).

So, out of 8 players, there where 3 under 2700, two of them being even under 2650 !!

And you affirm that what I say ("in several of these '3 - 1' tournaments, there were several comparatively weaker grandmasters") isn't true ?!?!?

The question is, clearly : "what is, for you, a "weaker grandmaster" ? If a nearly 200 elo gap isn't sufficient, I really wonder what you would want ? A 2000 Elo grandmaster ???

And, as you say : "The London Chess Classic (...) was an elite eight player field.", it seems that you consider a grandmaster under 2650 to be an "elite player" ??? (...as there where two of them in this tournament, they represented one quarter of the players, which is quite a significant number...)

All this is really more than strange...


- "The proof is in the games, it does not require statistical proof...although if you require mathematical proof you should be able to figure it out for yourself, the mathematics is elementary...."

If you can't demonstrate what you affirm, it hasn't any interest, and isn't worth anything. And you will certainly not convince anyone with vague formulas such as this one.

By the way, it is really rather funny : as you are completely unable to demonstrate anything on this subject, you even go to the length of affirming that a demonstration isn't useful : "(...) it does not require statistical proof (...)". When you run completely out of arguments, you seem to be totally unable to admit it !...

@Petrarlsen If you require more proof, and are not convinced from one tournament, here is the 2009
London Chess Classic (Carlsen, Kramnik, Adams, Howell, McShane, Ni Hua, Nakamura, Short):

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?page=1&tid=70344

And the 2011 London Chess Classic (Kramnik, Nakamura,Carlsen, McShane, Aronian, Anand, Short, Howell, Adams)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?page=2&tid=76213

The 2011 edition had nine players, so there are even more games for you to consider

Again, I defy you to locate ONE short GM draw in either of these tournaments...even among the highest rated players

You will also notice that in both the 2009 and 2011 editions, at least three or four players had a chance to win the tournament, or tie for first, going into the last round....Another benefit of football scoring

The leaders still have to play for wins in the last rounds....There are no short draws among the leaders in the last rounds, as are commonplace under traditional scoring

"I have followed EVERY ONE of the top-level tournaments using this 3 - 1 scoring system"

No you have not, and that much is clear. It's made even clearer by your following statement:

"in several of these '3 - 1' tournaments, there were several comparatively weaker grandmasters"

No, that had nothing to do with it. And if you really had "followed EVERY ONE of the top-level tournaments using this 3 - 1 scoring system" - as you spuriously claimed - you would know that

The London Chess Classic under the football scoring, was an elite eight player field. If you need a demonstration -(since you obviously won't look it up for yourself) take a look at the 2010 London Chess Classic:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?page=1&tid=72655

The field was Carlsen, McShane, Anand, Kramnik, Nakamura, Adams, Howell, and Short

Howell may have been the lowest rated GM in that field, but there were no easy players...and the point is even when the strongest super GMs played against each other, they played each and every game until there was no play left

Look at the games...Really, look at them....Tell me if you can find one short GM draw in that tournament...even among the top players

The proof is in the games, it does not require statistical proof...although if you require mathematical proof you should be able to figure it out for yourself, the mathematics is elementary....Obviously in a 3-1 system both players have more to lose by drawing, and they have more impetus to play for a win

Common sense, really...And the real proof is 'in the pudding'...The games themselves

@ koko48 :

"(...) once again you're contesting a point having done no research, and with no information"

At this point, this is rather ridiculous...

YOU are affirming something (that this 3 - 1 scoring system is useful).

So YOU have to prove your point.

It is very simple, common sense logic.

Contrary to what you affirm, I have followed EVERY ONE of the top-level tournaments using this 3 - 1 scoring system, without being AT ALL convinced that this system improved anything in these tournaments (and I've already said it to you, so, when you say that I am "contesting a point having done no research, and with no information", you know perfectly well that what you affirm is downright false - in fact, I don't see at all which information you possess that I don't have on this matter).

But the question isn't in vague affirmations ("The PROOF is out there...you haven't seen it only because you haven't looked for it", etc.) ; it is a question of number : can you PROVE (one more time...) statistically that this scoring system changed anything ?

It stands to reason that, if this system has REALLY for a consequence that the players play differently, avoiding draws more than usually, it MUST have measurable and statistical consequences.

As YOU are affirming that this system is useful, it is up to YOU to demonstrate its usefulness.

So, I'm waiting for your demonstration...

And, by the way, don't forget to take into account in your demonstration that, in several of these "3 - 1" tournaments, there were several comparatively weaker grandmasters : this factor necessarily decreases significantly by itself the number of draws, without having to invoke the scoring system or any other reasons...

@ Petrarlsen We've been through this before. And once again you're contesting a point having done no research, and with no information

"As for the 3 - 1 scoring system, I have never seen any PROOF that this system really changes anything"

You haven't 'seen any proof' because you haven't looked at the games played under this system....As I suggested to you previously

So at the risk of sounding redundant, I'll suggest again...Look at the games played under this format, particularly some of the older London Chess Classics (there were other tournaments around then that used football scoring...I believe Bilbao did one year, and I know I'm missing at least one)

The PROOF is out there...you haven't seen it only because you haven't looked for it

@ koko 48 : In the present case, in view of the general situation, as I said already, the problem is not with the games, but with some "chess spectators" that "(...) are ALWAYS grumbling at everything !..." !!

There are plenty of interesting games in this round ; if you want to concentrate precisely on THE short draw, between all the "top games", it is clearly that, in fact, you are searching for a reason to criticize something... And when you search for something to criticize, you always find something, in the end !...

As for the 3 - 1 scoring system, I have never seen any PROOF that this system really changes anything... This is a question of statistics, and not of opinions, and it stands to reason that, before implementing universally a significant change, you must PROVE that it will be useful... and as there has been quite a lot of tournaments played with this system, if it is really useful, it must not be so difficult to prove it...

In this case, the onus of proof is obviously on the proponents of this system... and, for the moment, they don't seem to have much to give us in terms of proof !...

The point is, these non-games are considered 'normal' in chess....just standard procedure...part of the strategy

And that's the problem...No other sport has so many non-games as chess...If you want to know why many people consider chess boring and drawish, look no further

And the culprit, as it has always been, is the traditional 0 - 1/2 - 1 scoring system

i found the chessbase's reporter for this event is quite lazy with his annotating and the reports for this event is nothing but leaflets

What's more annoying is that Chessbase adds this 15 move draw game diagram, videos, player pictures and makes a "sensation" out of it. Seriously? That's your top story? Who is your editor?

I find it rather odd that players have to kind of "explain themselves" when they make a quick draw. First of all it's a tournament and you need to make strategic decisions for your tournament based on many factors - your tournament strategy, particular opponent, colour, your mental and physical shape that day, mood, etc. Everything is done according to the rules of tournament, which were not violated by making a draw, were they?

And don't forget that players play for themselves, not for the spectators. In fact, F*** the spectators - don't like, don't watch! Just like in any other sport.

Events where spectators are important: circus, concert, performance, TV shows, etc. Go watch those if you want entertainment. Sport is different breed.

Personally, I'm not at all annoyed by a game such as the Yu Wenjun - Sutovsky game.

It's a "normal game" (a draw by repetition and not a short draw by mutual agreement), and, in an open tournament like this tournament, there are dozens of games (...no shortcoming of games to study for anyone...), so I don't see at all where the problem can be.

Indeed, I'm under the strong impression that some "chess spectators" are ALWAYS grumbling at everything !...

Just a small detail that was not mentioned and it might be of interest :

GM BOGDAN-DANIEL DEAC IS 15 YEARS OLD!!!!

Quick draws will never end in chess until they bring back the football scoring

"The biggest chess open in the world currently, the Gibraltar Masters, has reached the halfway mark..."

This is not accurate. The World Open in the US is the largest open tournament in the world. The Gibraltar Masters is the strongest open tournament in the world.