I propose that draws be unrated and the rating increase via wins be doubled. Also a game winner should NEVER lose rating points a la Fischer vs. Spassky. 
By definition, someone with an established rating cannot lose rating points by winning a game, because the expected score formula produces a value that is always less than 1. However, someone can be the undisputed tournament champion and lose ratings points because that person lost some games or drew some games against lower rated players.
Fischer didnât lose points for any games in the match that he won. He gained rating points for each of them. He lost rating points over the match as a whole because his expected score was less than the rating formula predicted that it should be.
Draws should always be unrated? So if I draw a game versus Magnus Carlsen I should get no rating points for it? Good luck getting that change passed.
The USCF use to have a rating rule that if a player won a tournament they could not lose rating points. When was that rating rule repealed/removed?? I do not think it applied to class tournaments, just open events.
Larry S. Cohen
I have researched that issue on several occasions, and could find no record of any code in any version of the ratings system programming dating back to the start of our computerized ratings system in 1977 that would have implemented such a rule. I also could not find any such motion in either the Delegates or PB/EB minutes dating back to 1986, when I started attending Delegates Meetings. (I think I once saw a motion that would appear to rescind such a rule, but I have not attempted to research that today.)
It would be challenging to programmatically limit such a rule to âopenâ events, because it isnât clear whether an event is open from just the event name, section name or the distribution of players in it. Is a quad an open event?
Further, such a rule would be contrary to the primary purpose of the ratings system. It may come as a shock to some people, but the ratings system DOES NOT MEASURE CHESS SKILL!
What the ratings system does is predict someoneâs likely results in a game or series of games, which is a combination of the playerâs skill and other factors
Consider two identically skilled players, playing in two separate events but against the same players. Both players go 4-0 in their first 4 games. Player A takes a draw to ensure a clear first in the fifth and final round, Player B wins the fifth game.
In order for the ratings system to accurately predict these playersâ results in future events, player B needs to be a bit higher rated than player A, because player A has shown a tendency not to perform to his full skill level in events, while player B has shown the opposite tendency.
So you sit there for 4-5 hours battling a guy 200-300 points higher than you-manage a draw -You are dead tired but elated-no rating points? Have you ever played in an OTB tournament? Bad Bad Bad idea
Donât worry, this (not rating draws) has zero chance of being implemented, both because players would HATE it and because it would essentially break the mathematics behind ratings system.
Organizers who donât want players to play quick draws have ways to deal with that, for example the Plus Score prize format.
Why should we discourage draws?
Short, âGrandmaster,â draws yes. But a drawn game is a natural result of an even contest.
This aversion to draws is ill advised to me. For a single game, a draw is no big deal. Thereâs plenty of suspense in any decently fought game.
-Matt
To further discourage chess players from playingâŚ
Iâve moved discussion of a suggestion by ChessSpawn into the topic Adjust ratings based on the percentage of good and bad moves in the US Chess Issues forum. This topic is for Ketchuploverâs proposal that âdraws be unrated and the rating increase via wins be doubled. Also a game winner should NEVER lose rating points a la Fischer vs. Spasskyâ.
That works.
Personally, I think artificial intelligence will ultimately propel human understanding of chess theory. That may ultimately reduce draws, or do the opposite and high level chess players will get more draws. Either way, I donât see a reason for any rule to reduce the chance of a person losing rating points due to having draws.
Itâs pretty much a sure argument that rating points, regardless of the system used, US Chess Federation or FIDE, or some other countryâs rating system⌠they all will only be an approximation of oneâs skill level.
It can be analogous to âweatherâ vs âClimateâ, in as much âweatherâ is a day to day phenomenon and can swing wildly from day to day or week to week or what not, but climate shows the over all trend of what mother nature is converging to. The same can be said about a personâs rating: It will go up and down based on recent game results or tournaments, but over all, the rating will reflect the general trend of a personâs skill level.
A personâs rating might bounce between say, 1650 and 1750 for years on end, but then one day, many years later, notice that his rating tends to bounce around say 1600 and 1700, showing an overall average loss of 50 points from is peak in his or herâs youthful days.
So losing points because the person drew against a lower rated person is not a bad thing, but just another indication that the personâs skill level might not be at itâs current peak.
And no, I donât think chess should be reinvented just to reduce draws. Ultimately, high level players have to take into consideration the over all effect on their potential income, so they tend to want to minimize the probability of their income going down. Many GMâs will try and maximize their income, so they they donât want their ratings to swing so much. Itâs not just about winning money at tournaments, but rather how much they can charge for non tournament related chess income. The sorta like if a horse wins the triple crown: itâs stud fees go through the roof if a horse wins all three races. GMâs need to keep their rating as high as possible for those reasons. So the financial incentive to not lose points is very much a huge consideration.
If we ever did get to that point, the simplest âreinventionâ would be to allow a supported King to give mate.
Take a look here.
Bill Smythe
You are one sick sob, Bill!! 