Why is more wins valued more than no losses ?

When 2 players have the same score like 1/2 for example why is the player with more losses considered better in tiebreaks it seems to me the one with no loses (=2) was more consistent. 1/2 may seem silly and the latter deserves the win but then it should be the same for a larger scale tournament.

Not sure of the wording you've used here, but I will give one hypothetical situation.  Many times players with an equal score can have the tie broken by number of wins because the organizers want to encourage players to play for a win more often than settling for a draw.  So, in this case, if player A draws 5 games and finishes with 2.5 pts and player B wins 2, loses 2 and draws one and finishes with 2.5 pts then player A would win the tie break.

I'm not sure if that's what you are talking about or not, but that's my guess about what you mean.

Does FIDE want chess to be a spectator sport so bad that they devalue the more consistent masters efforts cause it's starting to look that way

To your second question the answer is yes. The brilliancy prize as as prime example is awarded for complicated or out of no where combinations. There are completely famous positional master pieces that still are not given a brilliancy prize. A positional player has little to no chance of ever winning a brilliancy prize unless he changes his/her play. I've even heard that the millionaire open won't accept draws if they think a "boring " opening was played which may force some players to change their repritore. I understand that planned draws is a problem but forcing players to compromise their own styles isn't exactly the answer.

Because that person is also the person with more wins.

And at least in high level games, it's much harder to win than draw.

I don't get it ... if either of them had wins, they couldn't have a score of 1/2. The only reason player A could be placed higher than player B in this case would be if he'd scored his draw against a higher placed player than player B.

chessmaster102's example of 1/2 is bad because in that case both players have the same everything (wins, losses, and draws).  Ignore his example.  Pick any other non-zero score.

No he means 1 out of 2. One player with a win, another with 2 draws. To answer the OP, I don't like that system myself

The reason wins are favored over draws is to discourage draws , especially the " GM  draw " where there is no fight at all .... the sponsors , organizers , and spectators probably all prefer to see decisive chess . 

LuisGruezo wrote:

Reb wrote:

The reason wins are favored over draws is to discourage draws , especially the " GM  draw " where there is no fight at all .... the sponsors , organizers , and spectators probably all prefer to see decisive chess . 

This makes sense, but it is unfortunate that players who play interesting chess and their games just happen to end in draws are punished by this tie-break system. I know many high level games which were exciting but still ended in draws.

Exactly I understand it's to avoid GM Draws but if that's the case then the rules were a game can't be drawn before move 30-40 and for those who are really agree to draws before should just not be invited to the next event. I heard some arguments were GM draws are for when both are tired but honestly chess is still a sport (of the mind) and like in other sports (most anyway) if your a pro (master in chess case)you don't call it a day just because your tired intact it down right isn't allowed in most other sports

For those having trouble understanding the example (+1,=0,-1) (+0,=2,-0)

I understand it's usually harder to win at higher levels but that's just it USUALLY! I'm not saying I can thrash them but a 2700 doesn't always play at a 2700 level a heck of a lot of times when I do decide to look over a game a high GM or so lost it's because they weren't playing at a level their rating might suggest its simple fact that for one side to have won it's because of the other side mistake or inaccurate moves(s) (that can be philosophically debated with the whole white advantage but that's not what this about) a draw usally indicates both players making a mistake what so ever.

I'd be interested in seeing a computer tournament played using a no losses is better than more wins tiebreak system