Originally posted by cmsMasterGood idea!
The Swiss System seems to encourage draws - especially with the Fritzed out openings, 3-1-0 would work.
Or, similar to Tommy's idea, what if, if a draw is reached, players playoff 2 more games to give better chances for a decisive result - and if one is reached only that result counts.
🙁
Seriously, I think this idea rules...RULES!
Originally posted by UndeadNightOrcNo, because anyone taking half an hour over 1. e4 and their opponent half an hour over 1... e5 would be instantly and transparently exposed as game-fixing cheats. Everyone would know, since everyone knows what is a reasonable amount of time to take over a move.
As already mentioned, all the players have to do is take their time. If the max game length is 6 hours and they can sense a short draw coming, they can simply slow down their play and finish well beyond the 1 hour you propose.
Or would you think, yeah. That Leko needs half an hour to decide on 1. Nf3. We all do.
And anyhow - fixed draws already exist. At least this would make them less likely, because at the very least a heck of a lot of extra work would have to be put into them in advance by the players.
Originally posted by TommyCBut nobody is going to be that blatant. They wouldn't need to be. Quickly bash out a few moves of an opening, and then slow down.
No, because anyone taking half an hour over 1. e4 and their opponent half an hour over 1... e5 would be instantly and transparently exposed as game-fixing cheats. Everyone would know, since everyone knows what is a reasonable amount of time to take over a move.
Originally posted by mtthwIs this possibility really such a sticking point?
But nobody is going to be that blatant. They wouldn't need to be. Quickly bash out a few moves of an opening, and then slow down.
Do you honestly think that if player A's speed against Topalov (a non-drawer) was on average a move every ten minutes, but against player B (his pal and well-known half-point expert) a move every fourty five minutes, no-one would know?
Do you really not think this is better than the current system, for this kind of thing?
The real problem of draws is that a group of players (i.e. Russians before and after Fisher) could save their energy to perform 100% versus other players.
Tournament organizers could forbid draws within 30 moves, but drawn positions can be reached soon. A lot of players study how to reach drawn positions with black vs. stronger players.
Draws are part of the game... and sometimes are very entertaining.
I just looked at this thread, so I don't know if this has been posted yet, but there was a tourney not held all that long ago that used an interesting point system to discourage draws. It penalised white for drawing, and actually made White push for the win in the all games, and the points for scoring wins were actually different for both colors. The tournament was called the Seattle Sluggers and had alot of strong US GM's in it. Someone should find the link, but I have to go to class.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!That sounds interesting.
I just looked at this thread, so I don't know if this has been posted yet, but there was a tourney not held all that long ago that used an interesting point system to discourage draws. It penalised white for drawing, and actually made White push for the win in the all games, and the points for scoring wins were actually different for both colors. The tourn ...[text shortened]... and had alot of strong US GM's in it. Someone should find the link, but I have to go to class.
Btw, my system also incentivizes white to play ambitiously - since a quick draw hands his opponent plenty of time with the white pieces...
TommyC, as I pointed out from the start, you are missing the point of why draws are being made quickly as they do. The players would rather focus their energy on games where it matters rather than butting eachother, wasting their energy, against an equally strong player. If they were to continue playing afterwards, how is that an improvement? Now they have to waste their energy anyway. I belive it is not a good solution to force such things in tournament, but better to have a system of reward that better reflects the general opinion.
I also think Varenka has a point: some of the best games in history are long-fought battles that led to a draw. We shall not penalize them. Perhaps better is then (I double the values first -> 6-2-0) 6-3-2-0 where 6 is for a win, 3 is for a long battle draw, 2 is for a quick agreed draw, and zero is for a loss. Although, the real problem might be to actually separate the two cases for 2 and 3 points. You can't really differ between a "lame" draw and a "real draw", or you might even need a judge for those things, which is not feasible in practice. I bet any invented system employed to differ between those two cases will have its own weakness. And besides, who is to question a player's judgement if he calls a position a draw, even after 15 moves?
Forbidding agreed draws is far too radical, IMHO. While one might argue that the physical condition of a player should also be taken into account in long tournaments, I think chess is not that kind of a competition. I would also imagine that for such a decision there are many players (who are not of good physical shape/condition) would be discouraged. Plus, you would just be unlucky if you get the "hard" games in the end of the tournament since you are much more tired then. Finally, if one were to forbid agreed draws, I think the players would start using the draw-by-repetition rule instead to achieve the draw. So there are a few reasons against that..
Originally posted by GolubLong-fought battles won't be penalised, will they? If you think my suggestion implies that, you've misunderstood what time is.
TommyC, as I pointed out from the start, you are missing the point of why draws are being made quickly as they do. The players would rather focus their energy on games where it matters rather than butting eachother, wasting their energy, against an equally strong player. If they were to continue playing afterwards, how is that an improvement? Now they have to ...[text shortened]... y-repetition rule instead to achieve the draw. So there are a few reasons against that..
Draws after 15 moves won't be penalized either, will they?
Actually, did you even read my post? I assume not - since everyone else has managed to understand it.
Originally posted by TommyCNO, what this does is encourage people to resign, and not fight for that draw. If you think you have a lost game, it might be best to immediately resign and start on game two so you can even the score ASAP. That said, I assume the clocks just don't change. What if you were behind on time, and behind one game? then your opponent might simply try to blitz you out.
Long-fought battles won't be penalised, will they? If you think my suggestion implies that, you've misunderstood what time is.
Draws after 15 moves won't be penalized either, will they?
Actually, did you even read my post? I assume not - since everyone else has managed to understand it.