Why not three points for a win?

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Joshua Gibbs
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:44 pm

Why not three points for a win?

Post by Joshua Gibbs » Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:16 am

Why dont leagues implement three points for a win one point for a draw like in football?

It would get rid of a lot of draws and make the game more exciting.

Why dont the ECF follow Jimmy Hill's advice....
Chess, translation, dealing with the police, programming and almost getting killed or arrested: http://honyakujoshua.blogspot.co.uk/

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Why not three points for a win?

Post by MartinCarpenter » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:42 am

In the individual games within a league match? Think about it for a little bit and you'll realise that it would be supremely pointless :)

If you mean 3 pts for winning a league match/1 for a draw then if you must, but drawn *matches* really aren't all that common or something to oppose.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Why not three points for a win?

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:08 pm

Joshua, as Martin says, it would be meaningless for a league match. It can be done in tournaments and was introduced into the FIDE Laws of Chess some years ago at myu instigation on Michael Basman's request. Some tournaments such as the London Chess Classic top event have used it.

It has not proven popular. Such games should have a different rating system. There are few of them, this has not been bothered with. For a Swiss it would have the disadvantage that last round results would become very important and lead to more cheating by throwing games.
I suspect the lack of 3/10 events is mainly due to inertia.
You could also have 10 points for a win with Black.
9 points for a win with White.
5 points for a draw with Black.
4 points for a draw with White
1 points for a loss with Black
0 points for a loss with White
ETC.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Why not three points for a win?

Post by Joey Stewart » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:39 pm

I actually quite like this system you have here Stewart, it definitely puts the onus on white to achieve more with his opening advantage, and rewards black for good defending (plus is nice if you have an opponent playing an exceedingly drawish white opening, that you will still get the lions share of the points when the inevitable result occurs)
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3927
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Why not three points for a win?

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:02 pm

Given the pairing rules of most tournaments, I suspect all Stewart's system will do is make "most blacks" the automatic first tie-breaker. Well, I suppose it's as good as any other arbitrary tie-breaker.

John Garnett
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:39 pm

Re: Why not three points for a win?

Post by John Garnett » Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:39 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:Given the pairing rules of most tournaments, I suspect all Stewart's system will do is make "most blacks" the automatic first tie-breaker. Well, I suppose it's as good as any other arbitrary tie-breaker.
It could make Swiss pairings a bit awkward, unless Black's extra point is ignored for pairing purposes

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8907
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Why not three points for a win?

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:22 pm

3 points for a win was introduced in the Football League with two aims:
(1) Reduce the number of draws
(2) Increase attacking play

In the first season with three points for a win, the number of draws went up. As for attacking play, the number of goals went down.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18092
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Why not three points for a win?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:42 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
In the first season with three points for a win, the number of draws went up. As for attacking play, the number of goals went down.
You might perhaps suppose that the pain of giving your rivals 3 points exceeded the pain of only getting one point yourself.

The London Classic used 3-1-0 in some of its earlier years. Didn't that just make number of losses the tie break?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8907
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Why not three points for a win?

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:49 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:
In the first season with three points for a win, the number of draws went up. As for attacking play, the number of goals went down.
You might perhaps suppose that the pain of giving your rivals 3 points exceeded the pain of only getting one point yourself.
Indeed. It's a bit like the scoring system in rugby union. 5/7 points for a try and 3 for a penalty, rather than the old days when it was 3/5 points for a try and 3 points for a penalty, now just means that defenses are willing to give up penalties to not concede tries. Increasingly defenses commit penalties, and eventually someone gets yellow carded for persisting infringements. When the game was originally conceived, you only got points for goals; scoring a try just meant you could try to score a goal.
Roger de Coverly wrote:The London Classic used 3-1-0 in some of its earlier years. Didn't that just make number of losses the tie break?
The tie-break was number of wins, so it meant WLL was better than DDD. But that ignores that WLL puts 6 points into the field that DDD doesn't, so your 3 points is worth less really.

Nick Grey
Posts: 1153
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Why not three points for a win?

Post by Nick Grey » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:42 pm

Some of us remember rugby with 4 points for a try. Some of us rejoiced in a 3 penalties to 2 tries win against the Welsh - we had a geography fieldtrip to Pembrokeshire the following week.

Best rule in football was when they introduced the rugby rule on retreating 10m/yds on dissent - if they continued football would be far more exciting if more goals is what you want. Trying to convince the excitement of a 90 minute football match to a chess game of 2.5-3 hours, 4.5 hours or 6+ hours is meaningless too. Give me 80 minutes of Rugby Union as a better sport.

As for chess I do not think it achieves anything other than players continuing in obviously dead drawn positions.
Also there is enough excitement in players arguing if too many blacks or whites in every tournament or league match as well as issues such as moaning about pairings and upfloats and downfloats.

Some leagues/clubs still use such a 3-1-0 scoring system.

As for cheating or deals on chess results I agree with Stewart the wider the variations on scoring are likely to lead to more disputes or accusations than 1-1/2-0, whereas at the lower levels we are increasingly aware of our own variability on results.

Post Reply