Draw, draw, draw...what's the solution? ChessBase readers write
Many chess players are vexed by draws, and for several reasons. One: there's a general aesthetic preference for decisive results. Two: some grandmaster draws are "grandmaster draws" - i.e. quick, bloodless, often pre-arranged games - most notoriously in the last round of a tournament. Third, the drawing haven motivates many players to prefer risk-averse chess.
What's to be done? One suggestion that gets bandied about from time to time is for chess to imitate soccer (strangely called "football" by non-Americans) and adopt a 3-1-0 scoring system. (Three points for a win, one for a tie/draw, zero [or "nil", for the soccer fans] for a loss.) That proposal was presented and critiqued a week or so ago in this article by Ron Dorfman, and his critique is critiqued in turn by lots of ChessBase readers over here.
Very briefly: Dorfman suggests that the clamor for a 3-1-0 system (generally labeled the "Bilbao draw" or "Bilbao scoring system" in both articles) is misguided and impractical. It's misguided because it penalizes draws when the real problem is the short, bloodless draw; hard-fought games that turn out drawn should be welcomed by chess fans. And it's impractical because it will encourage cheating: rather than pre-arranging draws, players - especially in a double round-robin - will arrange to swap victories. That works out as well as pre-arranging a pair of draws, but with the added advantage of giving themselves an extra point over a pair who only draw their games.
In reply, many offered a double critique. First, the victory swap plan requires a great deal of trust - especially from a player who is already violating the rules - in a situation where betrayal is reasonably likely with enough financial incentive. Second, soccer has used this system for years, and without any problem. We've seen it work, so we should trust it.
I'll offer a counter-response on Dorfman's behalf, though this doesn't mean I agree with him about the Bilbao system. (Or that I disagree, for that matter.) First, if pre-arranged victory swaps were to become common, as the discussants seem to allow, then someone who violated such an agreement would quickly become a pariah and lose out on any possible future benefits. He might gain one time by breaking the agreement, but the long-term repercussions would almost surely outweigh the one-time gain.
Second, the analogy with soccer isn't a very good one. To execute such a secure pre-arranged win swap there would require the collusion and confidentiality of a great many players. Maybe not all 22 starters, but a lot of them. Further, those players would have little to gain and tons to lose. They are salaried and receive endorsements; winning a higher team prize in a competition is nice, but only a small part of their earnings package. Chess players, on the other hand, with very, very few exceptions, receive little to no up-front money and no endorsements at all. So their level of temptation will be much higher and their level of risk far lower.
There may well be other problems with Dorfman's critique, but so far, his critics haven't made a compelling case.
What's to be done? One suggestion that gets bandied about from time to time is for chess to imitate soccer (strangely called "football" by non-Americans) and adopt a 3-1-0 scoring system. (Three points for a win, one for a tie/draw, zero [or "nil", for the soccer fans] for a loss.) That proposal was presented and critiqued a week or so ago in this article by Ron Dorfman, and his critique is critiqued in turn by lots of ChessBase readers over here.
Very briefly: Dorfman suggests that the clamor for a 3-1-0 system (generally labeled the "Bilbao draw" or "Bilbao scoring system" in both articles) is misguided and impractical. It's misguided because it penalizes draws when the real problem is the short, bloodless draw; hard-fought games that turn out drawn should be welcomed by chess fans. And it's impractical because it will encourage cheating: rather than pre-arranging draws, players - especially in a double round-robin - will arrange to swap victories. That works out as well as pre-arranging a pair of draws, but with the added advantage of giving themselves an extra point over a pair who only draw their games.
In reply, many offered a double critique. First, the victory swap plan requires a great deal of trust - especially from a player who is already violating the rules - in a situation where betrayal is reasonably likely with enough financial incentive. Second, soccer has used this system for years, and without any problem. We've seen it work, so we should trust it.
I'll offer a counter-response on Dorfman's behalf, though this doesn't mean I agree with him about the Bilbao system. (Or that I disagree, for that matter.) First, if pre-arranged victory swaps were to become common, as the discussants seem to allow, then someone who violated such an agreement would quickly become a pariah and lose out on any possible future benefits. He might gain one time by breaking the agreement, but the long-term repercussions would almost surely outweigh the one-time gain.
Second, the analogy with soccer isn't a very good one. To execute such a secure pre-arranged win swap there would require the collusion and confidentiality of a great many players. Maybe not all 22 starters, but a lot of them. Further, those players would have little to gain and tons to lose. They are salaried and receive endorsements; winning a higher team prize in a competition is nice, but only a small part of their earnings package. Chess players, on the other hand, with very, very few exceptions, receive little to no up-front money and no endorsements at all. So their level of temptation will be much higher and their level of risk far lower.
There may well be other problems with Dorfman's critique, but so far, his critics haven't made a compelling case.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Ever more on draws
- Draw, draw, draw...what's the solution? ChessBase readers write
