Since it is much more difficlut to win, or draw, with Black, I propose awarding 4 points for a win with Black; 3 for a win with White; 2 for a draw with Black; and 1 for a draw with White.
The three move draws and ‘group hugs’ in the last round would become a thing of the past! What possible reason could there be for offering a short draw with White if by doing so you give your opponent an extra point? It would, therefore, increase the need to FIGHT!
My proposal is especially good for the traditional five round swiss, which is inherently unfair in that one player will always receive an extra Black. This proposal will help to offset the advantage of the player receiving three Whites, as the player with Black in the last round will have the possibility of out-scoring his opponent.
As an example, take the current Russian Superfinal. Heading into the penultimate round, the traditional standings look like this:
Alekseev 6
Timofeev 6
Jakovenko 5 1/2
Vitiugov 5 1/2
Svidler 5 1/2
Morozevich 5
Under my proposal, the standings would look like this:
Alekseev 20
Timofeev 19
Jakovenko 19
Vitiugov 17
Svidler 17
Morozevich 17
This being a twelve player event means the color distribution will be uneven for the players. At least this way the players receiving the extra Black will have a chance to make up for it!
There’s a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.-P. J. O’Rourke
There would be a side effect in that during the pairing process score groups would become much narrower. The more rounds, the more noticeable it would become. After round 1 you would have possible score groups of 4,3,2,1 after 2 rounds groups of 8 on down to a 4th round possibility of 16 score groups for pairings vs the 12 that we have now. I’m not exactly sure if this is a good or bad thing.
On the other side of the issue I think that it would be wrong to penalize someone for scoring a draw from a lost position. Oftentimes one has to fight harder to do that then simply winning from a won position.
Clint Ballard sponsored the GM Slugfest tournament in Seattle in October 2006. This event was rated by the USCF using the normal 1-1/2-0 scoring, but pairings and prizes were based on BAP points. I think the East Bay Masters in Berkeley in December 2006 was also based on BAP. I am not aware of any other BAP tournaments since 2006, certainly none of a national scale.
Nocab’s idea is much better than BAP, since it doesn’t involve White giving draw odds. I don’t exactly “like” the 4-3-2-1 system, but it doesn’t turn my stomach the way BAP does.
You’d have to make a whole new set of pairing rules, though.
The BAP event Ballard ran had an even number of rounds so that each player would get the same number of blacks and whites. In each even numbered rounds, the pairings were made to ensure color equalization, which of course makes the scoregroups even less precise. It was, however, a Swiss with a limited number of players.
In Nocab’s preferred application, the five round Swiss, prize distribution will inherently be influenced by the color allocations which give the players a different range of possible scores. Of course, colors already influence the probability of success, but it can be overcome since players do win with Black. Imagine a large Swiss where two players have 5-0 scores, but one takes 1st because he had 3 blacks and the other player had only 2.
In an unprecidented display of organizational savvy, director Chester Nahment declared that all drawn games would be followed by an immediate Mini-Armageddon where the total time was 6 minutes split between the two players with no delay (draw odds to Black). The key is that each player bid how much time they would give their Black opponent if the opponent started the game without their Black Queen! “This will usher a whole new way of thinking about the game,” stated Mr. Nahment, “we’ll finally settle the age old question 'How much time is a Queen worth?” that GM Mo Terrs posed in his monumental book Luke Warm but Post Modern Ideas in Chess."
Chess purists the world over have villified Mr. Nahment for his innovation. “It’s worse than Sierawan Chess,” said Pontu Eyphor, the director of World Alliance for Chess Kids and Youth (WACKY), “But not as bad as the Simpson’s chess set on uscfsales.com.”
Chester Nahment responded, “It’s not so bad – the upper sections only bid for Rook odds. We thought about playing a hand of blackjack to settle the draws, but realized that the phrase ‘Hit me’ wouldn’t sit well with our more literal-minded players. There’s no need for altercations.”
Fair enough Mr. Nahment, but what about the term Mini-Armageddon? “We like to think of it as localized chaos only. It’s not a full Armageddon as players are not allowed to shuffle pieces three times in a row within the first two files nearest the clock, or allowed to wear shirts with sleeves. We hope the term will remind the players of the board-bound nature of the chaos, which should keep the spectators safe from flying pieces.”
Not necessarily. What if 2 players drop out after the first round, both of whom had black in round 1? Then it would be impossible to give everybody the same number of blacks and whites throughout the tournament, even by pairing across score groups.
The initial assumption, that it is harder to draw or win with Black, is not proven by a long shot. Andras Adorjan wrote several very interesting books on the subject. Many great games have ended in draws, a credit to both players. Yeah, yeah, go cite some statistics, but many players love to have Black. Funny, the tinkering to penalize draws is never promoted by professional players or strong amateurs. They know how hard it is to win with either color and they don’t appreciate meddling by hackers. This “simple proposal” like most panaceas usually cause as many new problems as they solve for both tournament players and TD’s.
There isn’t any real way to reduce draws in chess. The subject has been discussed ad nausum for many years. The last year or two have actually seen some variations in tournaments in order to reduce draws. Any system to reduce draws will ultimately have pros and cons associated with it.
Giving weighted points to black for drawing invariably just causes the black player to try and draw as much as possible. At least 1 player in every game has an incentive to draw.
As written, this looks correct. You carefully avoided saying the incentive was only to draw. There are the occasional tournaments with no second-place prize (such as my club’s fall tournaments for traveling trophies) where the result of the tournament is such that either of the two players on board one will get first on tie-breaks with a win and will end up tied for second with a draw. In such a situation the lower-rated player has a small incentive to draw, but it is likely that both will be trying their best for the win.
Ya, I think most everybody is thinking more on GM draws rather than draws by lower rated players.
At the highest level, drawing is a huge problem because the grandmasters are thinking both in terms of ratings and how to best achieve some sort of monitary gain. Having multiple grandmasters tie for first place means they can usually keep thier rating roughly what they came to the tournament with, but also the top prizes are combined and split evenly with the 1st place winners.
If a GM is going into the last round and there are 4 other players all tied for 1st place, there is little incentive to risk trying to win the pot, when losing might mean taking 5th place, which might even be split yet again with other 5th place finishers. [I was assuming the other 3 players tied for 2nd place.]
I don’t see the draws as a huge problem. The pros have to make a living. If, in an n round tournament, n-1 fighting rounds aren’t enough, I think you are being a bit too critical. But an organizer can do it however he wants, and if the money is good, the players will “magically” appear.
I don’t like this plan that awards more total points for a Black win (4) than for any other outcome (3). Would you award more rating points as well? I hope not (it would really make it hard to know what a rating meant) but then if not, there is a mismatch between the players’ incentives and how they are rated, so that would still make the ratings less meaningful.
Have fun discussing these schemes but I hope they never become the norm.
I am not necessarily proposing this idea, but other games of chess dramatically reduce draws by:
Xiang Qi (sp?) (i.e. Chinese Chess)
Repeating a position is ILLEGAL (unless forced), but then the opponent cannot force a third repetition.
Also, moving into check is not illegal, but loses. If a king is stalemated and the only move is into check, he loses.
Other games have similar rules (Shogi, Go)
(Draw by agreement is culturally frowned upon, and the 50 move rule does not exist)
The only real draw left is insufficient material to checkmate, or never ending endgames such as R v R, but the number pf draws would be greatly reduced.
Again, I am NOT advocating this. It would dramatically change end-game strategy. It’s just that this is the way other forms of the game handle the situation.
Insufficent material to checkmate would then also depend on the opponent’s material. A lone black Kf8 versus a white-to-move Kh8 would win with a white Ph7 (or contiguous column of white pawns ending on h7) but not with any other combination of white material.
That could mean that your flagging when the opponent has a lone king (or K+B or K+N) would result in a loss if you have a pawn that is already on or could get on a rook file.
It would be even more interesting if repeating a position were illegal, period. If a player’s only otherwise-legal move would repeat the position, he would lose. Better yet, he would draw (stalemate) unless he were in check, in which case he would lose (checkmate).
Don’t like that one. It’s not consistent with the other ideas I’m suggesting here.
Better yet, why not prohibit a 50-move situation, similar to prohibiting a repeated position? If 99 plies (half-moves) have been played without a capture or pawn move, the player on the move would be required to capture or move a pawn. If no such move were available, the game would be over – again, stalemate if the player is not in check, checkmate if he is.
That should be fodder for the kick-around mill for a while!
I’m not convinced that there is a problem to be solved here. Oftentimes a hard fought draw, especially against a higher rated player can be just as satisfiying as a win against a lower rated player.
But throw this idea into the discussion mill. Any drawn, stalemated or whatever game is a win for the lower rated player in all cases.
This eliminates all draws. It goes beyond reducing them. The higher rated player should be able to win. (The only problem here is those rare occasions when two players are exactly equal in rating, in which case the player with fewer rated games gets a win in drawn situation.)
“That which does not Checkmate me, prolongs the game.”
Wayne’s idea isn’t good for ratings either. How does one estimate a-priori winning probabilities if the incentives depend on ratings in this way? At any rate we would need to adjust the a-priori distribution currently in use.
For example, if I am lower rated than my opponent by one rating point, my expected result from the game is greater than 0.5. On strength we’re virtually tied, and the draw-bonus must throw the balance in my favor. And then if I win: did I beat expectations by 0.5 game points, or only say 0.4? I would say only 0.4, so we have to put draw probabilities into the a-priori distribution as described above. I should gain only the number of rating points I would be entitled to as beating expectations by 0.4.
Furthermore it would exacerbate the tendency of lower rated players to play for the draw, because a draw is no worse than a win for them! I thought we were trying to promote fighting chess here, not a situation where one guy tries to be a draw master and the other must win at all costs.
I’m sorry I like things the way they are and agree with the part where Wayne says there doesn’t seem to be a problem that need solving.
