Why is every non-checkmate a 0.5-0.5 draw?

Obviously the primary goal of a game of chess is to secure a checkmate, but doesn't it seem silly that every other outcome is scored as 0.5-0.5 as if both players played an equal game?  One player has a lone king, and the other has a king and a bishop... True, the bishop isn't enough to force a checkmate, but do we believe that both players truly played an equal game of chess?  Securing a Bishop is not easy and I would have no problem saying that the player King + Bishop got the victory... even though it's not a total victory.  It's a "win-by-decision" rather than a "knockout".

Thus, I'd like to entertain the following tournament scoring system.

• Checkmate/resign/run out of time = 1 point for winner (0 points for loser)
• Stalemate = 0.8 points for winner (0.2 points for loser); same as Lasker’s suggestion
• 3-move repetition, insufficient checkmating material, and 50-move situations award points as
follows:
o If both players have the same material, Black gets 0.6 points and White gets 0.4 points
o If White has more material than Black, White gets 0.7 points and Black gets 0.3 points
o If Black has more material than White, Black gets 0.7 points and White gets 0.3 points
▪ [[When determining who has more material: Q=9, R=5, B=3, N=3, P=1]]
• Since there aren’t any “draws” anymore, there aren’t any draws-by-agreement. However,
players can still agree to a “fast 50” which means that they both believe that no further
progress can be made and they agree to score the board as if 50th move was just completed.

It would compare to the current FIDE system like this:

* By "Impasse" I mean any game that ends in a board position that's not a checkmate or stalemate (and neither player resigned or lost on time). 50-move, 3-move, insufficient material...
** Material value is up for debate, but let's assume the standard Queen = 9, Rook = 5, etc. for starters.

Here's my essay in support of this system complete with historical background, charts and applying it to the Carlsen-Caruana match:

Thoughts on Drawing

Thanks for the consideration.

Kind regards,
David

[edited: Feb 10, 2020]

Exactly.  Endgame theory in particular would have to be revisited.  Right now most books don't distinguish stalemates from 50-move outcomes.

0,8 and 0,2 makes no sense. 0,75 and 0,25 is way better becouse if 0,8 and 0,2 then 2 stealmates give 1,5 (3 draws) and 0,4 (0 draws

"0,8 and 0,2 makes no sense. 0,75 and 0,25 is way better..."

0.8 comes from the King of Chess himself, Emmanuel Lasker:

http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0103.htm

I really like chess the way it is.

While we are at it, lets change the rules of monopoly from you lose if you go bankrupt to it's fine if you had the most properties, you played the better game

Cool.  I like chess, too.  What about my proposal do you not-like?

"While we are at it, lets change the rules of monopoly from you lose if you go bankrupt to it's fine if you had the most properties, you played the better game"

Wait, what?  Explain how that is related at all to my proposal?

It depends on what you want to change. This change not only how the game and results are scored but also how they are played. And I am not saying they will change the mindset of the players and make them more aggessive, but rather you will change the game of chess at a fundamental level. At the very least with this scoring system one could take every endgame book ever written and toss it out the window, with stalemates being more like defeats than draws.

I feel the football point system (3 pts for a win 1 for a draw) will benefit the game in the sense that it will make the players be more open to pushing for a win in equal positions.

Stalemate improves endgame theory a lot.

Now I would willingly sacrifice material with an eye towards winning, and having drawing chances as as a backstop should I fail to win.  Don’t know if I’d be as willing to sacrifice material if draws were a .8-.2 split.

I would like to see these proposed changes use in a few tournaments to see if/how they affected play.

Because it's too materialistic based. That means less cool combination sacs are worth trying, because if the other person 3 fold repetitions, you gain less pts. Plus, white's advantage isn't THAT big.

No. The only goal is to checkmate the opponent's king, nothing else. Having extra pieces doesn't mean you played a better game. Would be extremely unfair to players who play positional sacs and overall would discourage beautiful romantic chess, which would be an absolute tragedy.

"Would be extremely unfair to players who play positional sacs and overall would discourage beautiful romantic chess, which would be an absolute tragedy."

If your sac doesn't work out, you should lose.  That's romantic.

You are suggesting to change the rules in order to give the win to what you would call "the better player"

Quoted for truth. It's an absolutely game breaking suggestion. If you care about who has most pieces at the end, play checkers.

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for replying, but there are two problems with your response.

(a) I'm not "giving a win" to one side or the other, but instead a partial win.  It's a "win by decision" when the boxers fail to have a knockout.

(b) I'm not changing any of the rules regarding checkmate, which is still required for a full victory.  Your monopoly analogy suggests that I'm throwing out the original win condition, which I'm not.

Kind regards,
David

Thank you Adrien!

Yes, those are good things to keep in mind.  I wonder if chess.com could run a months worth of tournaments using this scoring system and see what happens.

It would also be interesting to open up computer engines, change the drawing-values, and see if they play differently.

Obviously, a change like this wouldn't be accepted without some pilots done first.

Kind regards,
David