Change the scoring system

The most commonly seen system for scoring in tournaments awards 1 point for a win and 1/2 a point for a draw. However, this often leads to what are often referred to as a "grandmaster draw" where if the two contestants believe it is an equal position after reaching the middle game, they immediately draw.

A less seen scoring system awards 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw. I believe this will encourage more aggressive play and force less draws. Players that wish to win a tournament will likely be those that can avoid draws and turn some of those draws into wins and allow for a few more losses.

I hate to agree with a picture of Jesus, but... Screw it I'm not going to agree with a picture of Jesus. I don't care how logical it sounds

what do you think of the kind of tie breaker system they use here in a lot of tournaments where you get tie break points (that are independant of w-d-l points) based on the record of your opponents multiplied by you're performance against them in the tournament?  I like it, but then I don't have an issue with people drawing games. 

My only problem with the tie break system is that it encourages wins against good players. But if you can't get a result against a weaker player it seems pointless...

And I don't have problems with draws either, I was emphasizing grandmaster draws where they draw by agreement after 20 moves rather than pushing for a win. A legitimate draw is a hard fought battle and is certainly noteworthy

But Jesus is just so cool. The guy singlehandedly offered salvation for all mankind. If that isn't cool I don't know what is.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it encourages wins against good players"--isn't that what we want?  Jeremy Silman had a recent post about the issue of GM draws.  A loss really is a loss for GM, it means something and I think of Sun Tzu's idea that the victories general wins the battle and THEN goes to fight it.  These guys see positions pretty deeply and and if a game looks drawn to them-- and there are many bigger factors than just what we see on  the board--, who am I to doubt it? 

In my own games I turned down like 3 draw offers, 2 recently.  I won 2 and drew 1.  But I'm not a GM and if I had what they had riding on a game I'd be cautious about when I went on to fight for a win.

Salvation doesn't really do anything. He would have been better as a wine maker

Sorry I wasn't clear before. What I mean is that with that tie breaker system, you get the most credit for beating the most successful players. However, if you are unable to beat the lowest rated players, it seems silly.

Lol

Well atleast salvation helps with moral

And as for the wine.... I never tried it. But I HAVE had communion wine and that's.... communion wine. Enough said.

musicalhair wrote-

what do you think of the kind of tie breaker system they use here in a lot of tournaments where you get tie break points (that are independant of w-d-l points) based on the record of your opponents multiplied by you're performance against them in the tournament?  I like it, but then I don't have an issue with people drawing games. 

The tiebreak system used on chess.com is crap. You can win all your games and still loose...because other players have played more games than you. This system can only be fair, if all players play the same amount of games.

IF you win all your games, then there is no way they could have played more games than you.  The tie break points only come from games within the tournament group.  When all the games are played, you'll all play the same number of games. 

musicalhair,

Not all groupings have the same amount of players. Therefore all players will not have played the same amount of games.

And the more games you play...the more points you can accumulate.

If you win all the games in the tournament, you will win the tournament. There is no possible scenario where tie break will come into effect.

so, you're saying you carry out tie break points from round to round?  I'm still in my first round of every tournament I'm in where it would matter-- and for that it works find.  I don't even see why they'd carry foward, it would be comparing apples and oranges since some groups will be tougher than others.

I'd rather see a draw give, say, 0.49 points to White and 0.51 points to black.  Acts as a good tiebreaker, addresses the first move advantage, and encourages more decisive play by White, all in one fell swoop.

rooperi makes a good point, that is why in tournaments where the top 2 advance but there is a 3 way tie for the top, all 3 advance.

musicalhair,

Look at this example.

Players 1 and 2 have played the same amount of games with equal record...yet player 1 leads? Does this make any sense?

Player 4 has won all his games...yet he is placed fourth...huh?

Players 6-9 all have equal records yet a great difference in their tie-break points.

Name	Record	Score	Tiebreak	Status
mitchellm (1566)	21-1-0	21	77.5	Active
mrpure (1549)	21-1-0	21	75.5	Active
shonuff913 (1444) http://cssjs.chesscomfiles.com/images/icons/member/diamond.png); padding-left: 16px; zoom: 1; background-position: 50% 50%; color: #004400; margin-left: 4px; text-decoration: none;" title="Premium Member" href="http://www.chess.com/membership.html?c=icon">	20-1-1	20.5	72	Active
ReedRichards (1569)	20-0-0	20	64	Active
Smeetz (1454) http://cssjs.chesscomfiles.com/images/icons/member/diamond.png); padding-left: 16px; zoom: 1; background-position: 50% 50%; color: #004400; margin-left: 4px; text-decoration: none;" title="Premium Member" href="http://www.chess.com/membership.html?c=icon">	16-2-0	16	48	Eliminated
cryptious (1340)	15-4-1	15.5	60.25	Eliminated
profesor79 (1216)	15-4-1	15.5	58.25	Eliminated
drlorentzo (1299)	15-4-1	15.5	57.25	Eliminated
OA_Chimera (1279)	15-4-1	15.5	50.75	Eliminated
Phildor (1262)	15-3-0	15	50	Eliminated

That tournament isn't over yet, is it?  The guys above him have played faster or played against faster people and thus they've accumulated more wins + draws.  When that third round is over, it will all work out.

Also, when I look at the break down of that tournament group by group (click on reed richard's name and you'll see his groups for rounds 1 and 2 and the current round 3), the tie-break points aren't accumulated round to round.

Click on his name and see if you agree.

Yes, you are correct that this tournament is still active. But, the current standings is based on the accumulated Tie-break points isn't it? I am unclear here...this is how I am reading this graph.

I myself have only entered 1 tournament...which is still in the first round, so I have no personal experience with other rounds.

Players 6-9 is a curious case. Same score...but great variation in tie-break points...and thus their standing varies.