@jonesmh If there is no pairing problem with the fractions then that may open up some compromises with the system I mentioned but I' skeptical.
Most of the critiques focus on the quality of chess under the proposed system, suggesting it would not help. This is not true, but it is not the main goal. This is about addressing the publics' *perception* of draws in order to increase interest in chess and to add motivation to continue a game. The weekend swiss is not in danger -yet. Back to the quality of chess. I can think of no chess problem that would lose beauty over these rules. Beautiful moves exist to create either a winning result or, in the case of an otherwise losing position, a drawing result. Now instead of two types of beautiful moves, there are three 1/3, 2/3 and 1. This would add to chess.
Who cares about draws.
Dunno what mean with public. But assuming it mean whole population not just chess affiniados. Let me assure most people in this planet do not know that chess top level is drawish game and it does not affect their decision not to follow it one bit. Whether champion was resolved by classical, rapid, blitz or tossing a coin make absolutely no difference to chess popularity.
As spectator sport chess is probably worst possible . I did not wat WC matches. I mean look a video where player thinks of move for 20 minutes and then making the move most top chess players would have done anayway is not good entertainement.
Format woudl need to like in WSOP televisionings to draw any attention. So no: draws are not a problem.
Chess now more popular than ever as hobby so there is no problem. First thing about fixing things is to not fix somethign that aint broken
No one wants classical chess games to be decided by rapid\blitz\armageddon games. Also if you have the lead, you can just draw the rest of the matches.Fischer was correct.
@petri999 ,classical wcs cant become rapid ones. If crazyhouse tiebreaks were classicals,it makes no sense.Same problem here
@petri999 There was a day when chess was followed across the world. I was there. Fischer Spassky 1972. And I remember one of the big three network anchor guys saying in a disappointed tone "another draw today." That opportunity may never come again, but it would be nice to be ready for it.
Well it will not come again. Game was secondary reason and cold war primary reason for large public following the match. Forsame reason Korchnoi vs Karpov was follwed to degree it was. Today most people do not name of the worldchmpion as it no longer a proxy for something else
In chess draws are the equal point of balance; the rest is part of the game.
What you may want to change are the rules before, around and after the balance.
I don't see how some people can't see that having excessive draws takes away from the entertainment value. Part of the whole reason competition is endearing to the human race is the drama that goes with it, to see someone enter into the'thrill of victory or the agony of defeat'. It's that human side of it that really captivates us.
I've always felt that a stalemate should be a loss for the stalemated side. One of the asthetic beauties of chess is that it tells a story, the story of a battle between two armies, two kings. In a war if one side is trapped with no escape that isn't any stalemate lol.
Well rules are rules and for most part they were settled hundreds of years ago. Stalelmate being win just as good rule as it is a draw. Chinese chess does not even need concept of mate. Player who cannot make legal move on his turn has lost the game. That covers both case. But europian version went the other way long time ago.
So you switch to chinese chess. Very few draws. Or go hardly any draws - actually game can be void but not draw. Also shogi draws are really rare. Draws are and have always been in European chess and will remain so. You cant change the but you can eiter accetp it or change game you follow and play
