4 ms·

I think you would see fewer ties if players got 0.2 points each for draws instead of 0.5 points each for draws. It makes the risk of going for a risky strategy

by Taek 3y ago

I think you would see fewer ties if players got 0.2 points each for draws instead of 0.5 points each for draws. It makes the risk of going for a risky strategy lower (you only drop 0.2 pts instead of 0.5 vs getting an easy draw) and it makes the rewards much greater... a single win and 4 losses scores the same as 5 draws. you wont see players doing intentional draws anymore either

whimsicalism 3y ago
think it is somewhat intrinsic to chess that it makes sense to go for ties as black in top tier play
BurningFrog 3y ago
Football (Soccer) did something similar. Before that is was 2 points for a win, 1 point each for a draw. In 1981 they made it 3 points for a win, and the sport has had substantially more offensive play since.
dfan 3y ago
One issue with this is that it encourages collusion. If you're a top GM playing someone of equal skill, it's +EV to agree to flip a coin beforehand to determine who will win (and then play a fake game) rather than playing it for real. Some chess tournaments have experimented with giving 1/3 point for draws instead of 1/2 and it didn't really change much. Mostly it acted as a tiebreaker, which you could have done by just using "most wins" as a tiebreaker anyway. My favorite idea (not mine) for creating decisive results in chess is that when a draw is agreed, you switch sides and start a new game, but don't reset the clocks.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  But most tournaments don't have players playing each other an even number of times. Any sport can have a thrown match. A la Rocky.
  - worddepress 3y ago
    The difference here is you are not throwing a match for outside money. You are actually doing something in your interest and probably not against the rules (??) so you are just playing the game (the new game) as intended. Might be an interesting variant of chess where 2 players just decide how much of the point they get each via negotiation, and if they disagree, they go to "court" by playing the chess game.
    - michaelt 3y ago
      Why would it be in your interest to intentionally lose and get 0 points?
      - TheCleric 3y ago
        Because it averages out. If it's a true coin flip, half the time you'll get 1 point and half you'll get 0. So it averages to an expected value of 0.5 points. 2 draws (at 0.2 points per draw) would only yield you 0.4 points. So if there's a good chance you'd draw twice anyway, it's a higher payout.
      - reaperman 3y ago
        It only makes sense if you are playing multiple games against the same opponent. Let's say you get 2 points for a win, 0.5 points for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. If you draw both games you both get 1 point. But if you win one and lose the other, you'd each earn 2 points instead.
- masklinn 3y ago
  “Some chess tournaments” doesn’t change habitual logic, if players are training for and in the mindset of drawing for safety they’re not going ton flip on a dime unless the incentives are massive.
neysofu 3y ago
Another possible solution would be to simply... remove draws from the game. Instead of checkmating the goal becomes to capture the opponent's king. Needless to say, no one likes this idea because it throws out of the window centuries of game theory. Endgames would be completely different. I'm not convinced it would be a less interesting game, though.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  There are many situations when this is for all practical purposes impossible. For example a King vs King endgame. Even really weak players will never accidentally put their king next to the opponent.
  - debugnik 3y ago
    Even worse, it's an illegal move to leave your own king in check, if I recall correctly, so that simply can't happen, not even by accident. The only possible outcome for king vs king is a draw. Unless we were to modify even more rules, of course.
  - kgabis 3y ago
    Well... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTS9XaoQ6mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTS9XaoQ6mg
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  at least as described, would not be sufficient to remove draws from the game - but would remove stalemates
- btilly 3y ago
  And what happens if you wind up with king and rook vs king and rook? Some positions simply do not allow for a win. Yes, you could say do it on time. But then it becomes about mechanical dexterity as people try to be faster than their opponent in a pointless piece shuffle.
  - neysofu 3y ago

by Taek 3y ago

whimsicalism 3y ago

think it is somewhat intrinsic to chess that it makes sense to go for ties as black in top tier play

BurningFrog 3y ago

Football (Soccer) did something similar. Before that is was 2 points for a win, 1 point each for a draw. In 1981 they made it 3 points for a win, and the sport has had substantially more offensive play since.

dfan 3y ago

One issue with this is that it encourages collusion. If you're a top GM playing someone of equal skill, it's +EV to agree to flip a coin beforehand to determine who will win (and then play a fake game) rather than playing it for real. Some chess tournaments have experimented with giving 1/3 point for draws instead of 1/2 and it didn't really change much. Mostly it acted as a tiebreaker, which you could have done by just using "most wins" as a tiebreaker anyway. My favorite idea (not mine) for creating decisive results in chess is that when a draw is agreed, you switch sides and start a new game, but don't reset the clocks.

paulddraper 3y ago
But most tournaments don't have players playing each other an even number of times. Any sport can have a thrown match. A la Rocky.
- worddepress 3y ago
  The difference here is you are not throwing a match for outside money. You are actually doing something in your interest and probably not against the rules (??) so you are just playing the game (the new game) as intended. Might be an interesting variant of chess where 2 players just decide how much of the point they get each via negotiation, and if they disagree, they go to "court" by playing the chess game.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    Why would it be in your interest to intentionally lose and get 0 points?
    - TheCleric 3y ago
      Because it averages out. If it's a true coin flip, half the time you'll get 1 point and half you'll get 0. So it averages to an expected value of 0.5 points. 2 draws (at 0.2 points per draw) would only yield you 0.4 points. So if there's a good chance you'd draw twice anyway, it's a higher payout.
    - reaperman 3y ago
      It only makes sense if you are playing multiple games against the same opponent. Let's say you get 2 points for a win, 0.5 points for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. If you draw both games you both get 1 point. But if you win one and lose the other, you'd each earn 2 points instead.
masklinn 3y ago
“Some chess tournaments” doesn’t change habitual logic, if players are training for and in the mindset of drawing for safety they’re not going ton flip on a dime unless the incentives are massive.

neysofu 3y ago

Another possible solution would be to simply... remove draws from the game. Instead of checkmating the goal becomes to capture the opponent's king. Needless to say, no one likes this idea because it throws out of the window centuries of game theory. Endgames would be completely different. I'm not convinced it would be a less interesting game, though.

BurningFrog 3y ago
There are many situations when this is for all practical purposes impossible. For example a King vs King endgame. Even really weak players will never accidentally put their king next to the opponent.
- debugnik 3y ago
  Even worse, it's an illegal move to leave your own king in check, if I recall correctly, so that simply can't happen, not even by accident. The only possible outcome for king vs king is a draw. Unless we were to modify even more rules, of course.
- kgabis 3y ago
  Well... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTS9XaoQ6mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTS9XaoQ6mg
whimsicalism 3y ago
at least as described, would not be sufficient to remove draws from the game - but would remove stalemates
btilly 3y ago
And what happens if you wind up with king and rook vs king and rook? Some positions simply do not allow for a win. Yes, you could say do it on time. But then it becomes about mechanical dexterity as people try to be faster than their opponent in a pointless piece shuffle.
- neysofu 3y ago