Proposing a new system for top tournaments

by Miguel Illescas Córdoba
6/22/2019 – Entrepreneur, trainer, and Grandmaster Miguel Illescas puts down some thoughts on how to make elite chess touranments more fan friendly. Inspired by the Norway Chess Armageddon experiment, he offers a proposal to improve the format with tweaks to the scoring and time control. We encourage you to offer feedback in the comments below.

ChessBase 15 - Mega package ChessBase 15 - Mega package

Find the right combination! ChessBase 15 program + new Mega Database 2019 with 7.6 million games and more than 70,000 master analyses. Plus ChessBase Magazine (DVD + magazine) and CB Premium membership for 1 year!

More...

An improved Armageddon?

The Norway Chess tournament is finally over, so it is a good time to analyze the conclusions that we can extract from the “Armageddon” experiment. First, we must praise the organizers for achieving this wonderful show, and commensurate audience records. 

Draws: A real problem

The first aspect that grabs our attention is that the percentage of draws in the Norway Chess has been increasing year after year, apart from 2015, and in this edition, draws have beaten all records. Three out of four games ended up in a draw.

Norway Chess

Year 1-0 Draws 0-1 Games Draw %
2019 7 34 4 45 76%
2018 8 28 3 39* 72%
2017 10 31 4 45 69%
2016 12 30 3 45 67%
2015 15 25 5 45 56%
2014 10 28 7 45 62%
2013 16 21 8 45 47%

* Ding Liren retired after three rounds 

A logical explanation for this fact is that the players that take part in the Norway Chess are world-class chess players and, as a consequence, they make very few mistakes. In addition, these players are facing constantly throughout the year, and they know each other very well. 

When the field is mixed, the percentage of draws is lower, as it occurs in the Tata Steel tournament, for example:

Tata Steel Masters (Group A) 

Year 1-0 Draws 0-1 Games Draw %
2019 20 54 17 91 59%
2018 25 55 11 91 60%
2017 23 57 11 91 63%
2016 22 61 8 91 67%
2015 28 45 18 91 49%
2014 23 30 13 66 45%
2013 28 50 13 91 55%

And if we analyze tournaments with younger players or lower Elo ratings, this percentage of draws goes down, as we can see in Tata Steel Chess Challengers (Group B): 

Tata Steel Chess Challengers (Group B)

Year 1-0 Draws 0-1 Games Draw %
2019 24 49 18 91 54%
2018 18 55 18 91 60%
2017 32 37 22 91 41%
2016 28 36 27 91 40%
2015 31 36 24 91 40%
2014 35 35 21 91 38%
2013 34 34 23 91 37%

We understand now why there are so many draws in tournaments like Norway Chess, and a look to the past will confirm it. In the famous tournaments in Linares, back in the 80s and the 90s, the percentage of draws was much lower, between a 40% and a 50%. But when the number of players was reduced, and the level of the field increased, this percentage rose dramatically, reaching more than 70%. Once again, we had the same problem: all players were world-class and they knew each other too well.

The Sofia-Corsica rule, prohibiting draw offers before move 30, has improved this situation. However, there are still many short or boring games, especially when white plays in a very solid way. 

A lot of draws will occur when the best players face each other. Thus, the idea of declaring a winner in each round using rapid chess makes a lot of sense, especially if we want chess to be more attractive to the general public. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

A winner every time

In each round a match winner shall be proclaimed. If the first game is a draw, another game will be played with the remaining time, and so on, until someone wins a game. The time spent on each move takes enormous value. 

Colours balance

The player who is white in the first game will play black in the rest. In this way, the chances of each player are balanced, and short draws in the first game are discouraged. 

Scoring

The winner in each round receives one point, the loser zero. Easy to understand for the public and the press.

Rating

For rating calculation each game is computed separately in the corresponding modality (classic, rapid or blitz), depending on the duration of the game. 

Time control

handshakeEach round has a maximum duration, which the organizers establish according to their convenience. 

In all games, the players have 3 seconds per move, not cumulative, plus an initial time:

  1. For the first game each player has two and a half hours, or less, according to the attached table.
  2. For the second game, each player has the time not consumed in the first game, plus 15 or 30 minutes.
  3. For the rest of the games, the players will have only their remaining time. 

The time of 3 seconds per move is not cumulative. If a player moves in 3 seconds or less, his clock remains stopped. After the first 3 seconds, it begins to consume the main time, until it is exhausted, in which case he loses on time. There is no need for the players to record the games, the electronic boards or the arbiters can do the job. 
 
Each player has a time based on the maximum duration of the round, set by the organizer.

Round
max. duration
Time each player receives ... ... ...
  1st game 2nd game More games In all games
7 hours 150 minutes Remaining time + 30 min. Remaining time 3 seconds per move
6 hours 120 minutes Remaining time + 30 min. Remaining time 3 seconds per move
5 hours 120 minutes Remaining time + 15 min. Remaining time 3 seconds per move
4 hours 90 minutes Remaining time + 15 min. Remaining time 3 seconds per move
3 hours 60 minutes Remaining time + 15 min. Remaining time 3 seconds per move

The idea that we have seen in the Norway Chess is good, but I think it can be better. To give 1½ points to the winner of the Armageddon game makes things unnecessarily complicated, not to mention that we must explain that a draw is good for black in the second game, etcetera.

What do you think?




Miguel is a Spanish chess player born in Barcelona. He is the editor of the chess magazine "Peón de Rey" and contributes to the daily newspaper "La Vanguardia" where he tests readers with different chess moves.
Discussion and Feedback Join the public discussion or submit your feedback to the editors


Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

MattF MattF 6/30/2019 04:44
A simple solution would be a 3-1-1.5-0 scoring system. In the event of a draw Black gets his full 50% but White is penalised. It would encourage players of White to play more aggressively too.
Ajeeb007 Ajeeb007 6/25/2019 11:51
@fgkdjlkag , there are several reasons why your analogy with various sports is inapplicable for chess. However, this isn't a proper medium for that debate.
fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 6/25/2019 11:41
@Ajeeb007, your logical solution is for tournament directors to invite weaker players? Can you imagine a football, tennis, or golf tournament intentionally inviting weaker players to get more exciting and decisive games? What is the press going to think? What are fans, who want to see their favorite players (which happens to be the absolute top players in the world) come to their town/country, going to think?
Ajeeb007 Ajeeb007 6/25/2019 07:38
"No, in fact accelerated formats are such a naturally logical way of breaking ties that most other sports use them. "-klklkl

Your argument is illogical. Because other sports use illogical means to break ties that means it's logical for chess to do so? I don't think so.
klklkl klklkl 6/25/2019 05:56
@kevinkin Again this bogus argument that because Chess will never have the appeal of soccer, basketball, golf we should give up and leave it as it is. As if there was no room for improvement. What gives you the idea that chess has reached its peak interest?
klklkl klklkl 6/25/2019 05:51
@withjewsyoulose If your username is any guide, you are a despicable anti-Semite. I hope Chessbase closes your account. You should be ashamed of yourself.
withjewsyoulose withjewsyoulose 6/25/2019 03:43
It is really simple to fix the chess draw problem. Stop using nonsense "anti-draw" rules and reward the victory using the football points system, which is more than proven and everyone knows it. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, 0 points for a defeat. Done!
kevinkin kevinkin 6/25/2019 03:16
Reducing draws in chess will never increase the popularity of the game with the "general public". Even if they know how the pieces move, the general public does not understand the game even at the 1200 level. As a lifelong player, I support the ideas in this article - and others like it over the years. But please don't think the general public will ever be interested in watching a chess tournament like say the Masters in golf. They can tell when a player makes a great shot even if they have never picked up a club. In chess they can't tell if a move is good or bad unless they are told so by a commentator. This leads to frustration and may even make the person feel dumb. The public will get interested in chess under unique circumstances with compelling personalities e.g. Fischer - Spassky - Cold War . That's about it I am afraid.
klklkl klklkl 6/25/2019 01:58
@Ajeeb007 "To settle a classical match or tournament with Rapid/Blitz/Armageddon is illogical."

No, in fact accelerated formats are such a naturally logical way of breaking ties that most other sports use them.

@Jacob woge "The draw problem, inasmuch that there is one, exists exclusively in very top elite events."

Not true, eg the current Summer Chess Classic.

"When you have a rapid play-off, the draw rate goes up."

To repeat, the point isn't to eliminate draws, it's to guarantee blood and action in spite of draws. It's incredible how attached so many of you are to draws, and conversely, how frightened you are of faster controls.
Ajeeb007 Ajeeb007 6/25/2019 02:32
I think this whole idea of absurd conditions and speeding up play just to attract greater audiences is misguided.

Unfortunately, organizers want to sponsor only the top 10 players in the world and to ignore the rest. These top players play so often, and are so closely matched, that of course they draw a lot of games. If they would open up these tournaments to a greater range of GMs they'd see more interesting and decisive games.

Also, using multiple time controls in an event makes no sense unless you want to determine which player is the strongest at mixed controls. Different time controls lead to different types of chess requiring slightly different skills. To settle a classical match or tournament with Rapid/Blitz/Armageddon is illogical.
Sniperchess14 Sniperchess14 6/25/2019 02:12
Muito boa as sugestões!!
Uma ideia bem louca foi feita por um amigo num torneio online: cada vitória = 3 pontos, cada derrota = 1 ponto e cada empate = 0,5 pontos!! kkkk a derrota vale mais do que o empate...
fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 6/25/2019 12:50
@chengtaixi "why don't learn go-game,this game is difficult to have a draw"

By the same logic, healthcare is broken in America, ut not in Germany. Why don't we all move to Germany?

This is not analogous at all; it is practical for anyone who knows chess to learn Go. It is not practical for everyone in the US to move to Germany.
But if you are saying that chess is broken, I agree, or at least it is going to be broken in some time.
AidanMonaghan AidanMonaghan 6/24/2019 11:50
Best Solution: Shorter time controls result in more entertaining, if less perfect games. If one wants to see perfect chess, they can always watch the most powerful engine play itself.

If players and organizers want the larger prizes, they must be willing to make the kind of sacrifices that will make the game more entertaining to the investing public.

The mental and physical agility required for Blitz or Bullet chess could even elevate these forms of the game into an Olympic sport. Players must depart with the luxury of having large amounts of playing time in order to elevate the game.
genem genem 6/24/2019 06:52
"If the first game is a draw, another game will be played with the remaining time, and so on, until someone wins a game."

Yes.
In any drawn game, the player who used less time did better in the sense of efficiency. Playing another game with the leftover time gives credit to this efficiency.
.
But retain the rule of - No draw offers can be offered or accepted until after 30 move-pairs have been completed.
.
If there is another solution to the awful draw-rate problem, we would know it by now.
Jacob woge Jacob woge 6/24/2019 05:59
The draw problem, inasmuch that there is one, exists exclusively in very top elite events. There is no reason to mess about with rules pertaining to ordinary people. That includes your run-of-the-mill grandmaster. One step down, and there is no drawing problem. Tata Steel has been mentioned as a good example.

Attempts to add rapid play-offs of some kind tend to exacerbate rather that alleviate. This has happened in the Candidates' knock-out, in the two previous world championship matches, and now in Norway. When you have a rapid play-off, the draw rate goes up. Not down.

The solution of a hundred+ years ago was to have draws count 1/4-1/4, a second classical game with colours reversed played out for the other half-a-point.

Life expectancy has grown considerable since then. Still, with more of it to go modern humans seem to have grown short of time. Nobody would be willing to double the length of an event today.

If a play-off is wanted, it must be short enough to fit into the same schedule. It should count less than the classical game.

The last point was also made by Grischuk, during the interview by Polgar after his last-round win in Norway. A 3-2-1-0 scoring system is to be preferred over the Norway 4-3-1-0.

This goes along the lines of mixed rapid and blitz tournaments, where rapid games are for two points, blitz for a single.

So you would have a classical win score 3p, a classical draw 1p plus one more go at it.

What about an ordinary rapid game, colours reversed, fixed time allotment independent of first game. And then the same way of splitting the point as in the classical game: a rapid win scores 1p, a rapid draw 1/3p.

No need for any book of revelation reference. A draw is a result. Amateur gegen Meister, you merit a draw before you merit a win. Not rewarding draws is a sure way of kicking the next generation out of the game.

The other way to go is to have a big chunk of the prize money divided according to number of wins.
Bharath Arugados Bharath Arugados 6/24/2019 05:25
We cannot have a case where White Victory gets a 1-0 score and Black Victory gets a score 0-1. Black Victory should get more points than white victory. How much points more? That can be debated and found out.

for example: 3 White wins = 2 Black Wins? OR ...

As a next step how about rating White Draws slightly less than black draws?
Bruce Harper Bruce Harper 6/24/2019 05:04
Years ago I ran tournaments using a very similar system, and the only refinements I favor are:

1. In each additional game, switch colors, so player 1 has white, then black, then white, and so on.

2. The minimum time per move should probably be more than 3 seconds, but that's a practical issue. If the increment can be greater for the initial game and less for the playoff games, that's best of all (see below).

3. For scoring, I would say 1/3 of a point for each player if they draw the initial game, and 1/3 for the tiebreak winner. This is same as 3-0 and 2-1, but maybe it is easier for people to follow, because each game is still worth a total of one point.

I saw this comment from the author:

Miguel Illescas 6/23/2019 11:51
Thank you for all the interesting comments, which can help to improve the proposed system. I like these ideas:
- 3 points for a win in the first game, and 2-1 if the first game is a draw
- First game with 2 hours plus 30 seconds per move (not cumulative)
- Rest of the games to be played with the remaining time, plus 3 seconds per move (not cumulative).
- No draw offer is allowed

The core of the idea is to continue play with the time remaining. This approach is very good because it means that the player who used less time in the initial (and subsequent) draw(s) has an advantage, which is as it should be. Each round of a tournament is a match, not just one game. This is hardly a revolutionary concept - it's essentially what happens in tennis.

Finally, if the duration of a round is an issue, there could be a fixed end time, and if every game has been drawn, then each player gets 1/3 of a point and neither player gets the remaining 1/3. I doubt that would happen very often.

I am happy that this idea now has GM support and I would like to see someone hold such a event. Norway has cleared the way - it failed, but now no organizer can be criticized for trying to deal with this issue.
Bruce Harper Bruce Harper 6/24/2019 05:04
The comments seem to be divided into the usual categories: either automatic rejection of anything new or responses that advocate completely different ideas.

I would like to respond to the actual proposal from GM Illescas.

First of all, the problem in chess is real, and responses such as "some people were complaining about the draw-death of chess 100 years ago" aren't responses at all. As chess is understood more (and obviously the best players understand chess best), there will be more draws. What is different now, as compared to 100 years ago, is computer engines and the continual growth of opening theory. The fact the percentage of draws is increasing is not a surprise - it would be surprising if it wasn't increasing. Without changes, chess will be done in another five or ten years.

I support the proposal made by GM Illescas, because it doesn't actually change the laws of chess. It is also not complicated or hard to follow (although it apparently is for some people who posted comments).
klklkl klklkl 6/24/2019 04:45
The sweet thing about this question is that reactionary resistance probably won't stop it, in the same way that even the rankest, dirtiest, most diseased fart probably wouldn't be enough to clear any room George Clooney was in. Natural selection will be at work here. If Norway was a success, sponsors will begin to put pressure on organisers of other events. Experiments will be made, the formats will shift, and at the end of it improvements will spread. Chess's community is insanely conservative (look at the opposition blitz and bullet still get from musty corners), which means there's plenty of low-hanging fruit in adjusting the game to make more money. And the best thing of all? As I said much earlier, you chess conservatives are still going to follow these events, just as part of a much bigger audience.

TLDR Suck on it dissenters
klklkl klklkl 6/24/2019 04:33
@dumkof "Isn't a draw still better than a loss?"

Not if they are extremely common and reached in ways that prevent the mass appeal of the game, for instance with long rehearsed sequences, timidity, 'first don't lose' mentality.

The genius of Norway was that craven players striving for draws were allowed to get on with it, but then forced to deliver for the audience with Armageddon.
klklkl klklkl 6/24/2019 04:26
@chengtaixi "why don't learn go-game,this game is difficult to have a draw"

By the same logic, healthcare is broken in America, ut not in Germany. Why don't we all move to Germany?
klklkl klklkl 6/24/2019 04:24
@deasla on 1-0-0. I love the idea, and maybe making prize money proprotionate to win rate.
klklkl klklkl 6/24/2019 04:22
@Aighearach "The fact is, chess is not going to make money the way soccer or racing do. ... But simple fact: chess is still not big money. That's the only reason for these new ideas; people still think chess might be big money with the right formula. That has nothing to do with improving chess for chess fans, though!"

This is a specious argument that misses the point. Who has made any pretension for chess to rival soccer or nascar? The intent is to broaden its appeal, attracting sponsors and new players. Falling even significantly short of soccer would not be failure - as long as it exceeds where we are now.

If the excitement around this years Norway Chess became common -whatever the format - more money would enter the game, more GMs would be able to earn a living from the game, and more people would play the game seriously. One thing that's certain is that this hasn't happened and won't happen with the classical format as it stands.
deasla deasla 6/24/2019 03:46
"Someone else suggests a 1-0-0 system ignoring a draw completely. İsn't a draw still better than a loss??? My brain can't handle these paradoxal things any longer. "

It was me. I want to return to the romantic era ! WHere a draw was the same as a loss (in spirit). People were chivalrous back then ! I'm sure it would incentivise reckless play. And it would only be in certain tournaments. A dedicated format. We should try it at least once. I'm sure it would be exciting.

And again a draw is still not the same as a loss in this format : you keep your opponent down with you at 0 point when you draw a difficult position. That's your price.

To be perfectly honest I had a much more radical idea at the beginning.I just couldn't come up with the right logistic :

A knockout tournament where only winner pass every stage. SImple as that. Everyone's in a must win situation every game. You would see grunfeld, najdorf and even weird gambit every game. Players would consciously try to make a position where they could battle it out ! (they both know that if they make a draw they're both eliminated).

Of course... If there's too much draw anyway (fighting draw for instance..) then the tournament would be over very quickly.
Leavenfish Leavenfish 6/24/2019 03:06
I for one think the game is fine as it is...no need to do anything - this IS how these SuperGM's earn a living after all.

@Peter B correctly says that "eliminating draws from a round robin makes no sense. You can still get players tied on the same number of wins."

Yes, but (in my idea noted below at least) you don't 'eliminate them'...you basically just make them not count towards the final prize pay-out. Divide the total # of wins occurring in the tourney at the end into the prize fund...and maybe give the overall winner (most points) a small percentage (he is likely to have wins anyway).

A draw does not count against you (a GM draw or otherwise)...a loss does not really count against you (these can be where you tried over hard to win and came up short...or a blunder in a winning position)...only WINS count toward the final pay out. The more you win, the more $$ you make and even at the end of a tournament, if you are doing poorly, you have the chance to make $$ by 'going for it' and providing the fans with the excitement that comes with it.

Again though...I am not one who sees a problem with the current system. But if there is...simply incentive wins!
FlannDefence FlannDefence 6/24/2019 09:11
Of all the ideas mentioned, the most disastrous for chess would be to demote a stalemate to a loss or partial loss. This would change the dynamic of the game in ways that would cheapen it and make it more superficial. For example, almost all endgames +1 pawn would become trivial wins. With that knowledge, the value of an extra pawn in the middlegame would increase enormously. Rather than create more interesting play, it would encourage attempts to gain a miniscule material advantage and exchange the game to death. Gambits and middlegame sacrifices would be too risky to essay in many cases. If you want to create a game with fewer draws, find a way to make it richer. An over-simplified game is a dull game, and no-one will be interested.
chengtaixi chengtaixi 6/24/2019 08:01
why don't learn go-game,this game is difficult to have a draw
Masquer Masquer 6/24/2019 06:33
@ dumkof

Just expose these cockamamie ideas for what they really are. No need to lose one's sanity over them :)
Peter B Peter B 6/24/2019 05:03
Eliminating draws from a round-robin tournament makes no sense. You can still get players tied on the same number of wins. Just use wins as the first tie-break method.
dumkof dumkof 6/24/2019 04:57
@FirstMove
The "format" you suggest is exactly the same as the 3-1-0 system.
Multiply your win-draw-loss values with 2, add a conatant 1, and you'll get 3-1-0.
Both scoring systems would order the players the same way.

"This incentivized aggressiveness without completely upending our game dynamics."
:) What you don't say...

I really can't stand these "scoring" suggestions any longer. I feel close to quitting my account to preserve my mental health.

Someone else suggests a 1-0-0 system ignoring a draw completely. İsn't a draw still better than a loss??? My brain can't handle these paradoxal things any longer.

Another friend suggests "no draw offers at all". 2700+ and 2800+ players would know better than anyone else, where to agree for a draw, or play on. İt's ridiculously agressive and impolite to force these super GM's to play on, when both sides know it's a dead draw. These players are no toys, to obey to such arbitrary rules.
Leavenfish Leavenfish 6/24/2019 04:45
Before going off the deep end, let us keep in mind that not all draws are 'equal'.

By that, I mean that if player 'A' was outplaying player 'B'...and 'B' gets lucky or tricky and sacrifices an exchange for a perpetual or drawn position...
Some are truly hard fought with turns in fortune throughout the game. Treating those the same as a 'correct' GM draw would be a shame. They simply are not the same.

The same can be said of wins and losses...just look at Rodshtein blundering away what was a dynamically equal position agains McShane today in Netanya. McShane certainly would be the first that he did not deserve that win...but Maximi's blunder on move 31 gave Luke the full point.

While I do so love my 'only wins count toward a portion of the prize money' idea (see below - which gives even someone out of the money in a traditional tournament all the incentive in the world to play for a win), I just don't think some proposals strike the right now. Look at the recent Norway tournament: notice all the draws that still happened. Heck, look at all the draws in the last TWO WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS where Magnus strategically took no risks and was happy with a draw...because he knew he held a tangible edge in the quick plays which would follow.
FirstMove FirstMove 6/24/2019 03:48
Win = 1 point
Draw = 0 point
Loss = -1/2 point
A draw is still preferable to a loss.
Two wins and two losses out scores four draws.
This incentivized aggressiveness without completely upending our game dynamics.
joshdarius joshdarius 6/24/2019 12:49
Loved the norway Tournament but this sounds very good too!!!
Miguel Illescas Miguel Illescas 6/23/2019 11:51
Thank you for all the interesting comments, which can help to improve the proposed system. I like these ideas:
- 3 points for a win in the first game, and 2-1 if the first game is a draw
- First game with 2 hours plus 30 seconds per move (not cumulative)
- Rest of the games to be played with the remaining time, plus 3 seconds per move (not cumulative).
- No draw offer is allowed
DiegoMastrangelo DiegoMastrangelo 6/23/2019 10:41
I completely loved Leavenfish idea!! I came here to write my own, but on reading his I completely agree to it.

You want to improve decisive games?

Give the money based on wins. Excelent!! Great idea!!! Even tough Giri may not like it :P
Leavenfish Leavenfish 6/23/2019 09:39
MONEY drives most every decision so, a very reasonable answer would be quite simple to come by:

DO NOT SET A PRIZE STRUCTURE UP FRONT ---let the final number of WINS determine the pay out...and eliminate or greatly reduce all those 'appearance fees' to give people even more reason to fight toward the end of the tournament.

In short: At the end of a tournament, divide up with prize fund based on WINS - draws would not count towards the payout.

EXAMPLE:
In a 12 round tournament with a $100,000 prize fund (you might give everyone a smallish appearance fee if you want to so they are not wasting their time...so lets say the fund is $110,000, $100,000 of which is up for grabs via their results....err, WINS), but lets say there are 10 decisive games when all is said and done. You simply divide the total prize fund into the end number of total wins into that...this gives you $10,000 which each win ends up being worth.

A player could score 4 wins and 8 losses (Jobova??!!) = (4 pts) while the 'winner' could score 3 wins and 9 draws = (6 pts). That first player who provided the most wins (excitement) gets $40,000 while the winner gets his $30,000 + maybe $10,00 for winning the tournament (this is the idea...tweak to your hearts content). Someone who scores 12 draws (okay, Ulf Anderson does not play any more...) would get nothing for the games and just get whatever that appearance fee is.

Get it?

This of course if you 'really' think draws are a problem, would get the job done.
PCMorphy72 PCMorphy72 6/23/2019 07:36
3-1-0, 1-0-0, 5-2-0, 2.25-1-0, 1-0.5632-0, … You all seem to ignore that all these systems will need at least the usual questionable tie-breaking score.
The day you will realize you prefer classical additional games as tie-break I will claim copyright.
fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 6/23/2019 06:32
The vast majority of comments are contradictory. Many criticizing armageddon because of low-quality games, yet are okay with shortening the time control. What does shortening the time control do, except produce lower-quality games that increases the chance of a decisive result? Ppl want a variety of strengths invited to tournaments - what does that do besides lower the quality of games, increasing the chance of a decisive result? Really, the suggestion is to intentionally invite weaker players (a weaker invited player is necessarily at the expense of a stronger player, unless the field is increased in size)? What incentive does that create for the top players?

And "stop inviting players that play uninteresting chess", per michelhoetmer & dumkof: these are objectively the strongest players in the world. So now the idea is to invite weaker players with a more aggressive playing style? The suggestion is really to incentivize the style of play? Chess tournament format has always been agnostic to playing style, that's why players like Petrosian, Karpov, Fischer, Tal, etc could develop very different styles and succeed at the top level. To incentivize style of play is completely ridiculous.

Another point: The 3-1-0 format (or whatever change in scoring) is going to have major ramifications on the rating system. It would really need to be standardized across tournaments, otherwise we are going to need 2 rating systems and 2 tournament circuits.
RHMLuck RHMLuck 6/23/2019 05:45
I think Carlsen would love that.
deasla deasla 6/23/2019 04:49
I reitarate my idea :

Win : 1 point
Draw : 0 point
Loss : 0 point

On the top level it would create lots of interresting games.
See a comparison of two player points in the new system and the old system :

Player A : 3 win 6 draw Old system : 6 point New system : 3 point
Player B : 4 win 5 loss Old system : 4 point New system : 4 point

You see the new system ecourage taking risk. Being able to keep draing doesn't mean anything anymore. The one on top at the end is the one who won the most game. Period.

And masquer your counterargument doesn't count. Players are already making arranged draws. Of course the sneaky one would start making arranged loss. It is how it is. Ban those players if you see any suspicious activity. And it would only be implemented at the top level. I doubt any players at the top level like to lose. Considering the elo loss !